Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL

HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

NHS and Community Care Act 1990

Ms. Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of training for local authority staff in preparation for their responsibilities under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Training for local authority staff is the responsibility of the employing authority. Our specific grant provision to local authorities for the training support programme this year was increased by 25 per cent. to £25 million. In addition, local authorities should be spending at least £10 million of their own resources on training.

Ms. Quin: Is the Minister aware that many local authorities, including my own in Gateshead, are expressing considerable concern that not nearly enough funds will be available to provide the training that will have to be introduced if community care is to be implemented properly? Will she have urgent discussions with the local authorities on this matter and assure us that the necessary steps will be taken to ensure that recruitment is at its proper level so that community care can become a reality instead of the pretence that it seems to be at the moment?

Mrs. Bottomley: I assure the hon. Lady that we have had close discussions on the implementation of community care. Only last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced a check list to ensure that all local authorities and health authorities are properly prepared for full implementation. Central Government have been playing their part. In the hon. Lady's constituency, there has been a 50 per cent. increase in the amount of money that is available for training social workers and I am pleased that that is being used to train three times as many social and other community care workers this year.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend make sure that local authority workers are trained to make the best use of voluntary and independent groups? Local authorities should not have a monopoly on community care.

Mrs. Bottomley: This is always a difficult issue for the Labour party, given that one third of its Members are sponsored by the health unions. The Conservative party has traditionally had a high regard for the role of the voluntary sector. We envisage the local authorities being enablers and facilitators in a close partnership with the voluntary sector. That is often an extremely productive way of providing high-quality services.

Mr. Rooker: Leaving the party politics to one side for a moment, may I ask whether the Minister agrees that local authorities welcome the addition to the training programme? There is no question about that. However, exactly when did the hon. Lady warn the local authorities about the full consequences of the reforms for elderly and disabled people? Does she now appreciate that duties that were once the sole province of the district nurse are now being carried out by home carers? I refer to bathing, caring for the terminally ill at home and the application of medication. That work is now being placed on local authority social service departments and on the home care service. Will the Minister explain why those tasks have been transferred from the district health authorities to the social services departments, if not for budgetary reasons?
What will be the full consequences—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Come on!"] Oh yes. These are not party political points; I apologise for that. Where was it was ever specified in guidance from the Department or in regulations that the local authorities had been warned about all the consequences of national health service reforms?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman should address the content of the original Griffiths report on community care. The distinction between health care and social care is one of long standing in the provision of services. To undertake the tasks for which they are responsible, local authorities have this year been given the largest increase for 15 years in the amount that we think that they should spend. They have been given a 23.5 per cent. increase in the amount available for spending. Certainly, the implementation of community care depends on close, effective working relationships between family health service authorities, district health authorities and local authority social services departments. I urge the hon. Gentleman to look at the important check list launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week. It addresses precisely the need to ensure that the frail and vulnerable receive a seamless service and do not fall down the gaps between different types of provision.

Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend will be aware of how welcome the extra money has been. Can she give us an assurance that the training that is provided is consistent with national vocational qualifications? Can she also confirm that her Department is looking forward to the time when it will be easy to interchange social workers between Britain and other European Community countries?

Mrs. Bottomley: Once again, my hon. Friend identifies a matter of great importance. The establishment of national vocational qualifications within social services and health services offers additional flexibility in the


provision of care. There has been a substantial—25 per cent.—increase in the amount of money available to the training support programme. Certainly, some of that is being used to resolve the question of vocational qualifications. The subject of interchangeability of qualifications with others in the European Community is one on which I have frequent discussions with members of the British Association of Social Workers and others who represent social workers' interests.

Baby Units

Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on special care baby units in the NHS in each of the last two years.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Specific information on expenditure on special care baby units is not collected centrally. In 1988–89 and 1989–90—the latest years for which information is available—total estimated expenditure on maternity and paediatric services was £1,192 million and £1,251 million.

Mr. Madden: Will the Minister persuade the Bradford hospital trust to stop the planned closure of the special care baby unit at St. Luke's hospital in Bradford? If the unit closes, more sick babies will have to be transported across Bradford city centre, or even treated in Leeds or as far away as Manchester. Will she also press the trust to review the centralisation of maternity services which would result in 6,000 babies being born each year under one roof? Lastly, will she persuade the Secretary of State for Health to stop being a wally and accusing me of scaremongering about redundancies as we now know that in Bradford there will be 250 redundancies by next April, rather than 300 over the next three years?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is showing the thinking of neanderthal man. He takes an unreconstructed approach to how we can improve the perinatal mortality figures in Bradford. We all agree that the figures need to be improved, but we shall not do so through the reactionary holding on to jobs that is so typical of union-sponsored Labour Members of Parliament. As ever, the Transport and General Workers Union is holding on to its own. The hon. Gentleman should think of his constituents, not of his trade union. He should think of the health of the nation and the strategy for health. In his area the general practitioner list size has fallen by 500 over the past 10 years. The hon. Gentleman should look to health visitors, midwives and community services, not merely to hospital provision. The role of the district and its purchasing function is to make sure that the figures, about which we all share concern, are brought down.

Mrs. Peacock: How many low birthweight babies now survive the most crucial first four weeks of their life?

Mrs. Bottomley: Ninety per cent. of low birthweight babies now survive their first four weeks of life. We have had the most dramatic improvement in perinatal mortality figures. Indeed, we beat the World Health Organisation targets for Europe and, of course, the general targets, too. We now wish to make sure that some of the regional variations are dealt with better because although in some parts of the country the figures are excellent, others lag behind. That is the result of a complex series of matters.

NHS Trusts

Mr. Buckley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his projections for the future activity levels of NHS trusts.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): I expect further significant growth in the activity of national health service trusts roughly in line with increased activity across the NHS as a whole.

Mr. Buckley: Does the Secretary of State realise that those who run, work in and use the national health service see no benefit from the introduction of hospital trusts? Does he further realise that those who work in the NHS consider that the job losses that are occurring as a result of the introduction of hospital trusts will have a direct bearing on patient care to the detriment of the service? Does the right hon. Gentleman consider all that to have been a satisfactory outcome of the implementation of the Government's hospital trust policy? Does he further consider—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is about to ask a third question. I think that is enough.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. More than 100 new applicants for trusts are coming along, supported by many thousands of senior clinicians and managers in the health service. My constituents are served well by a trust and I know the workings of the trust well. The scares that have been handed to the hon. Gentleman to get him to join in our questions on the subject today are quite off the beam.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I thank my right hon. Friend for deciding that NHS trusts should make public their business plans. That decision will be widely welcomed. Will he give an assurance that the specialist department in the Department of Health will scrutinise more adequately the financial plans of potential trusts and ensure that their projections of income and expenditure are accurate and are based on fact, not on assumption?

Mr. Waldegrave: Detailed projections for a year ahead are always likely to be false, in some cases because of the allocations that are made later in the year. So there is no way in which those making proposals in July and August can exactly describe the financial situation the following year. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that we must examine all applications with great care, as we did last year.

Mr. Kennedy: As there was no reference in the Conservative manifesto to setting up trust hospitals and as the results of every local referendum on the issue have been overwhelmingly in one direction—against them—although they have been ignored by the right hon. Gentleman, does he agree that when it comes to phase 2 of the trusts, it would be sensible to learn the lessons of the first wave and allow the matter to be put to the test at the next general election, before any more trust hospitals are established?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman's difficulty is that throughout the country local Liberal parties have taken a completely different line. That is not surprising, as many Liberals have supported trusts. The hon. Gentleman


tries to maintain a uniformly negative position from here, even though that position is not supported by many of his party's members.

Mr. Wolfson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when taking a view of trust applications, he will not always be looking merely at trusts that are currently in a good financial state but will encourage others to take NHS trust status to improve their financial position in the future?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend puts his finger on an important point. The improved management that we obtain from NHS trusts is necessary in places where there may be problems. That is why I am delighted with the improved management at, for example, Guy's and Lewisham, because everybody knew that for many years there were problems there.

Mr. Robin Cook: Further to the point of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), does the right hon. Gentleman recall that a surplus was forecast when he approved the application from Bradford? By last month Bradford was forecasting a deficit and by last week it had announced the closure of 13 wards, including the special care unit to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) referred. Why were none of those service closures included in the consultation document published less than a year ago—or was that also one of the biggest lies since the ancient Greeks? If the Minister did not know when he approved that application that approving Bradford as a trust would lead to those closures, will he now halt the second wave of opt-outs until he can tell us what went wrong with the first wave?

Mr. Waldegrave: I liked the word "also". If the hon. Gentleman will think about the implication of his words, he will realise that he has just acknowledged that what he stated in his leaflets is untrue—as I think he very well knows. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has studied the report of the Select Committee, which discussed these matters more seriously than the hon. Gentleman has done today. It is obvious that ahead of the allocations produced last December, it was impossible to produce a detailed cash flow for a hospital for the next year. What I had to adjudge—as I shall have to do again in respect of the second wave—was whether the management were capable of dealing with the problems in the hospital. Labour is getting wholly left behind on this, as on other things.
There will be a major second and third wave of trusts and that will be the pattern of hospital management for the future.

Project 2000

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to announce the inclusion of further nursing colleges for participation in Project 2000.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: We made £71 million available for Project 2000 in 1991–92 and have already agreed to implementation in a further 14 colleges of nursing this year. The Project 2000 implementation group will be meeting early next month to advise me on the allocation of the balance of funding available and I shall make an announcement as soon as possible thereafter.

Mrs. Hicks: Although Wolverhampton will not, unfortunately, be getting a child support agency, because

it does not have an appropriate building ready, my hon. Friend will know—because she had the honour of opening it—that it has a first-class nursing college, the United Midlands college of nursing and midwifery. My hon. Friend will be aware of Wolverhampton's disappointment that it has not yet been included in Project 2000. Now that there is more money in the kitty, can my hon. Friend guarantee that the United Midlands college will lbe carefully considered on its merits so that, if it is successful, it can give more representation to Project 2000 in the black country?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is a great champion of that college and I much appreciated the opportunity to open it. This year, nearly £3.5 million is being spent on implementing Project 2000 in my hon. Friend's region. We are looking carefully at all the available projects and I give my hon. Friend a clear assurance that the United Midlands college will be given urgent consideration.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Is the Minister undertaking arty analysis to ensure that an adequate number of bridging courses are available to those who wish to enhance their qualifications? Will she ensure that such courses are evenly spread throughout the country?

Mrs. Bottomley: One requirement of Project 2000 is that arrangements are made for enrolled nurses to improve their qualifications. We need to ensure that nurses at every level of qualification have a chance to improve and to continue their training. We spend in the region of £770 million on nurse training and we want it to develop across the board.

GP Fundholders

Mr. Squire: To ask the Secretary of State Health if he will make a statement on the progress of GP fundholding.

Mr. Waldegrave: As the House will know, more than 1,700 general practitioners are voluntarily taking part in the fundholding scheme, which in its first year already
covers 7–5 per cent. of the population of England. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the agreement reached with the representatives of the medical profession on joint guidance for hospital consultants on GP fundholding which I announced last Tuesday.

Mr. Squire: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituency includes one of the GP fundholders to which he refers? That practice recently began hiring a consultant —paid for out of NHS funds—to ensure that patients are seen within one month, rather than have to wait for up to a year, as they previously did after being referred to Oldchurch hospital in Romford. Will my hon. Friend congratulate that practice on its initiative and acknowledge that it makes a better use of funds, gives a faster and better deal to the patient and reduces hospital waiting lists?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am delighted to congratulate the practice to which my hon. Friend refers. It is just one example of how GP fundholders throughout the country are showing how to make better use of the money for patients. They are showing also how the NHS, which


already does extremely well for its patients, can do even better if we can improve on devolving money to where decisions should be taken.

Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to explain the claim that he made on the record that patients of fundholders bring new money with them? Will he confirm that every penny in GPs' budgets has been deducted from health authorities' budgets? Is not it a confidence trick to pretend that the same money becomes new money when laundered via GPs? He told us that 40 per cent. of GPs are expected to become fundholders. How will any number of pilot projects help health managers to plan for local needs with 40 per cent. less money in their budgets?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman, who has been rather left behind in these matters, is catching up. It is perfectly clear that all NHS money comes from taxpayers. If the hon. Gentleman has just discovered that, it is wonderful. We have allocated some of that money to GP fundholders through the regional mechanisms available to us. Every year, we win new money for the health service and I hope that we shall do so again. We have a much better record than the Labour party on that.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, it is perfectly clear that the close working relationship between GPs and districts can be developed further. I am looking at new ways of making that co-operation even more practical and efficient.

Ancillary Services

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the total savings from privatisation of ancillary services for the last 10 years.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): Total savings from competitive tendering in England since 1984–85 now amount to £126 million a year.

Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that £126 million would buy one new hospital a year, 45,000 hip operations or 145,000 cataract operations? Would not the Labour party hand that money back to COHSE and NUPE? Should not people tell their grandchildren what it was like under Labour in 1978, when cancer patients who were dying were not allowed admission for treatment? Would not it be a good idea if they took note of the fact that the health service would be a hell service if it were coupled with the name of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is on to a good point. The Labour party is bound by two commitments: first, to abolish competitive tendering, which will cost £126 million; and, secondly, that no more money should be available to the health service. Labour Members must explain to the patients whose treatment would not be possible, despite the fact that that money is being provided to the health service, why they should wait so that the Labour party can discharge its pledges to the trade union movement.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Will the Minister give us the full picture on competitive tendering? What is it costing the

Government in terms of social security payments to low-paid national health service workers because private contractors have driven wages down to poverty levels? How many NHS workers are now forced to take on two jobs to make ends meet? Will the Minister also explain the appalling standards of cleanliness in hospital wards because of private contracting?

Mr. Dorrell: What I will do is tell the House about the attitude of the general secretary of COHSE, Mr. Hector MacKenzie. He says:
Success depends on the willingness of members …to push for a health service that acts in the interests of its staff.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was at the COHSE conference at the weekend. I hope that he took the opportunity to dissociate the Labour party from those sentiments.

Sir George Gardiner: Will my hon. Friend confirm whether competitive tendering is practised by the NHS in Merseyside?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is on to an important point. Competitive tendering is practised by the NHS in Merseyside, which is clocking up savings of £6 million a year as a result. That is freeing resources which allows Merseyside to have a waiting list record that is second to none. If every other local service in Merseyside were run as efficiently as the health service, many problems would be solved.

Health Spending

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of gross domestic product is spent on health in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) other European countries.

Mr. Waldegrave: It is estimated that total United Kingdom spending on health as a proportion of GDP will be 6.5 per cent. this year, compared with 5.8 per cent. in 1980. We do not yet have comparable figures for other European countries.

Mr. Salmond: That is hardly surprising, as such figures would show that the percentage of GDP spent on health in the United Kingdom is significantly less than that spent in other European countries—and the GDP figure is lower as well. According to the findings of various surveys, the United Kingdom spends between 50 and 70 per cent. of the amount per patient spent by France and Germany. Given those figures, how can the Secretary of State possibly deny that the national health service is suffering from chronic and debilitating underfunding?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman should beware of such naive comparisons. The Netherlands, for example, includes nursing homes in its health figures. [Interruption.] I refer to the 1988 figures. If we did the same, our spending figures would be increased by 0.25 per cent.
In many respects, the figures are not comparable. The figures relating to output are far more important. Our perinatal mortality record is now better than that of the United States, although that country spends nearly twice as much of its GDP on health. What matters is the efficiency of the health service, not the result of crude comparisons.

Dame Jill Knight: As we are comparing Britain's health service with its counterparts on the continent, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend has read an article that appeared this week in the British Medical Journal and which highlighted the enormous number of complaints from Italian patients, who are required to take their own bed linen and food into hospital and have to tip lavishly to attract any attention? Is my right hon. Friend aware that doctors, nurses, medical auxiliaries and pharmacists all over France were on strike last week, protesting about the French health service and, in particular, the cuts Unposed by the French Government? Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that in health matters the grass is not greener on the other side of the channel?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend's observations confirm that we have a health service to be proud of—recent polls show that up to 80 per cent. of people are satisfied with it, including waiting times—and we are seeking to make the service more efficient. The real questions should be addressed to the Labour party. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) recently tipped the wink to the British Medical Association that under Labour about £6 billion extra would be available per year. That was reported in the British Medical Journal, although the hon. Gentleman provided no press handouts, any more than he provided press handouts in relation to COHSE. If he wishes to deny that statement, let him do so.

HIV Screening

Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the anonymised screening programme for HIV is being extended; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The first results of the anonymised HIV surveys have provided valuable information about the prevalence of HIV infection in England. The number of participating clinics will increase throughout England and Wales as the surveys continue.

Mr. Strang: Will the Minister confirm that "anonymised" screening is truly anonymous, and that there is no way in which a positive result can be traced back to any individual? Does she agree that the programme will provide valuable information only if it covers a wide enough spread of the population and if that spread is maintained for a number of years?

Mrs. Bottomley: The screening survey has already proved its usefulness in allowing us to plan services and the development of preventive measures. I can confirm that the testing is entirely anonymous. It is essential that we have fact, not fantasy, on which to work in dealing with the spread of HIV and AIDS which are, after all, the most serious threat to public health this century. That is why we have made it clear from the outset that special resources should he directed deliberately towards research, prevention and services.

Baby Life-saving Units

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will undertake an assessment of the need for, and availability of, extra-corporeal membrane oxygenator baby life-saving units.

Mr. Dorrell: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Janner: Will the Minister assure us that the EC MO baby life-saving unit in the Groby road hospital in my constituency will have enough funding to continue in existence? Is he aware that unless public funding comes through, that unique unit will almost certainly have to close, resulting in a serious, unnecessary and scandalous loss of babies' lives?

Mr. Dorrell: I am pleased to be able to give the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is my parliamentary neighbour, the assurance that that will not happen. I spoke to Mr. Field, the clinician in charge, on the telephone this morning, and he will meet Professor Peckham, the director of research and development of the NHS, on 4 July.

Mr. Butterfill: Is not it true that nearly twice as many babies died when the Labour party was last in power, whereas we have succeeded in cutting the death rate from 8.2 per thousand to 4.6 per thousand?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one of the health indicators that have improved dramatically in the past 12 years.

Capital Finance

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on capital expenditure in the health service between 1971–72 and 1991–92.

Mr. Charles Wardle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the level of capital investment in the national health service in 1991–92; and what was the figure in 1978–79.

Mr. Waldegrave: Capital expenditure in the national health service in 1991–92 is planned to be 60 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1971–72 and 68 per cent. higher than in 1978–79.

Mr. Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that capital expenditure today is almost double what it fell to when Labour cut expenditure in 1977–78? Does he agree that there is much more machinery, equipment and electronics in the health service than there was before, and that we now have lithotripters and magnetic resonance imaging equipment, none of which existed under Labour in 1979?

Mr. Waldegrave: One of the most disgraceful aspects of the previous Labour Government's record was their catastrophic cut in spending on the health service after the International Monetary Fund arrived in this country. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) usually says he voted against that, but in fact, as we discovered, he abstained. For example, we now have MRI scanners, lithotripters and mammography equipment, and defibrillators are present in every front-line ambulance. We have a better-equipped health service.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Does my right hon. Friend have on file a Trades Union Congress report criticising the Government for hospital closures and cuts in the NHS capital investment programme? Will he contrast that report, which was published in 1978 under the last Labour Government, with more recent news of more than 500 major hospital building projects being undertaken, millions more patients being treated and almost £33,000 million to spend on patient care this year?

Mr. Waldegrave: I confirm that that is so. On the 30th anniversary of the health service, the TUC made a tremendous but justifiable attack on the then Labour Government. Now, however, the hon. Member for Livingston, by nods and winks—by going to the BMA, by saying yes to every pressure group and by promising expenditure that he knows, if he took on my job, he would not be able to honour—is building up the same explosion of resentment and failed expectations as that which occurred under the last Labour Government, causing the winter of discontent and bringing catastrophe to the health service.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Returning to the comments of Mr. Hector MacKenzie, in the context of this question does the Secretary of State think that the national health service should act against the interests of its own staff?

Mr. Waldegrave: Of course not. I know that the hon. Gentleman, who is sponsored by COHSE, would not believe that to be so, but it is an extraordinary statement not to put first that the national health service should act, above all, in the interests of patients.

Mr. Skinner: If everything has been so good with the national health service during the course of this Tory Government's 12 years, why are wards and hospitals closing, beds being shut down and more than a million people on waiting lists, and why are GP fundholders at a practice in north Derbyshire able to get their patients into hospital six weeks before others who are not GP fund holders?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman may have missed the agreement that was made with the profession last week, which laid to rest such scare stories. I make no apology for the policy of closing hospitals that are no longer needed; in saying that, I am quoting the Secretary of State for Health under the last—and I mean last—Labour Government.

NHS Trusts

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the preparation for improving health care in their areas made by the NHS trusts since their establishment in April.

Mr. Dorrell: The NHS trust programme is already delivering widespread improvements in patient care.

Mr. Nicholson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the myths and allegations put forward by the Opposition parties about NHS trusts are being met by the reality of success, expansion and the recruitment of consultants and other staff, not only by the Taunton and West Somerset trust in my constituency but in east Somerset, Weston, Bristol, and Devon and Cornwall? Has my hon. Friend noticed that the Devon branch of the National Union of Public Employees has welcomed the application and the plans being made by the Devon ambulance service to become an NHS trust?

Mr. Dorrell: I have noticed the attitude of the Devon branch of NUPE. I hope that the more inspired approach of that branch will be applied in competitive tendering, which we discussed earlier.
On the improvement in patient care which is attributable to the trust programme, my hon. Friend may like to observe what is happening on Merseyside. There is

investment of £1.3 million in the kidney service at the Royal Liverpool university hospital and a new lithotripter has been installed so that more patients can be treated on a day-care basis. There are 84 beds for heart patients in the new building at the cardio-thoracic centre in Liverpool. There is also investment of £4.5 million at Broadgreen hospital in Liverpool to build a new 96-bed psychiatric unit. Those are examples of improvements in patient care being brought to Merseyside as a result of the trust programme.

Mr. Alton: In that case, how can the Minister justify the closure of St. Paul's eye hospital in Liverpool and the decision—announced yesterday, when I went to see the chairman of Liverpool health authority—to close a second general hospital, leading to a reduction in the number of beds available for psychiatric patients?

Mr. Dorrell: If local disagreements come to the attention of Ministers, we shall consider the cases then. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would take the opportunity to welcome the fact that on Merseyside we have far and away the best record on waiting lists in the NHS—they are down by one quarter compared with 1979. Since 1979, the number of in-patients treated has increased by 29 per cent. and the number of day cases treated has increased by 86 per cent. The health service on Merseyside is a success. If only other local services were so successful.

Mr. Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important benefits of the trust programme has been the tremendous increase in staff motivation? Does he agree that if the NHS is to be seen to be improved, staff motivation will be one of the cardinal characteristics of that improvement?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The trust programme is a means of providing staff of all levels in the health service with a greater opportunity to influence the output of the health service and the treatment of patients in their units. It gives local ownership to the service that is delivered. That is good for the staff and for the patients.

Ms. Harman: Is the Minister aware that in an interview with the South London Press, Sir Philip Harris, a former furniture tycoon who now chairs Guy's hospital trust, justified meeting in secret to axe jobs and services because, as he said, otherwise it would slow the whole process down? Sir Philip said:
What we can't do is have open debate"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No quoting, please. Paraphrase.

Ms. Harman: Does the Minister think that it is right that Guy's hospital trust should meet in secret? Does he agree with the chairman's belief that the trust should act "as a company"?

Mr. Dorrell: It is right that the health service should have the skills of effective management at its disposal. If the trust programme can recruit, through its assistance, people who are capable of delivering a more effective service to patients, that is justification enough for me.

GPs (Patient Referrals)

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements he proposes to make to permit general practitioners whose practices are too small to


qualify for budget holding to obtain treatment for their patients outside their own districts; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: All GPs will continue to be able to refer patients in line with their clinical judgment. Contracts for health services will provide a more effective way of giving practical effect to GPs' referral decisions.

Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend's reply should show GPs that the rules are flexible enough to enable them to refer patients outside their districts for treatment at other hospitals, even though their practices may be too small for budgeting. How do this year's referral figures compare with last year's, now that there are new rules?

Mrs. Bottomley: The key point is that for the first time district health authorities have been working closely with general practitioners about where they want to refer patients. That means that it is possible to build on improvements in service, take quality into account and negotiate more effective targets for the future. Contracts have been placed to cover 95 to 99 per cent. of GPs' likely referral needs.

Medicines (Advertising)

Mr. Irvine: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the draft European Community directive on the advertising of medicines.

Mr. Dorrell: The draft EC directive is broadly consistent with existing United Kingdom legislation.

Mr. Irvine: Does my hon. Friend agree that pharmaceutical companies make a substantial contribution to the funding of postgraduate medical education? Does he further agree that the draft directive, as it stands, would considerably restrict the ability of pharmaceutical companies to continue to provide such funding? Will he do all that he can to get it across to the powers that be in Brussels that the directive represents a considerable threat to the funding of postgraduate medical education in this country?

Mr. Dorrell: I certainly share my hon. Friend's determination to ensure that such a threat does not materialise. We regard it as essential that the directive should not in any way restrict the sponsorship that the pharmaceutical industry rightly provides for genuine educational and scientific projects in the form of research and conferences.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Pike: Can the Prime Minister define the term "Majorism"? Does it mean reducing inflation from the level that the Government have created? Does it mean

increasing unemployment to more than 2–5 million? Or does it mean failing to invest in our manufacturing industry? What is Majorism?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would be well advised to read the speeches that I made at Scarborough, Southport, Swansea and elsewhere. It involves extending choice and opportunity more widely, bringing quality to our public services, a strong economy with low or nil inflation, letting people spend more of their own money in their own way, maintaining firm defences and giving choice back to people, which is where it should be.

Sir Giles Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that negotiating vigorously and directly with our European partners is the best way to arrive at a common approach to those political and economic issues that are in the best interests of Britain? Does he further agree that such an approach should be based on what is practical, realistic and evolutionary rather than engaging in rhetoric or working on a blueprint for federalism?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. A European super-state would not be acceptable to me or to the House—and in my judgment it would not be acceptable to the country.

Mr. Kinnock: Would the Prime Minister say that the large fall in manufacturing output over the past 12 months was evidence that his policies are working?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the best possible future for manufacturing industry is to ensure that the economy has the lowest possible inflation and the prospect of growth again. That is where the prospects for manufacturing industry come from; without that secure base, manufacturing industry would face problems for a long time.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister not yet realise that by keeping on with his high interest rate policies he is making his recession deeper and longer, and causing a permanent loss of capacity in British industry? What sort of preparation does he think that that affords for the completion of the single market next year?

The Prime Minister: The single market would not have come about but for the efforts of this Government, and there has not been a great deal of support from the Opposition. There are no good prospects for any part of the economy without low inflation. We are now delivering low inflation in a way that the right hon. Gentleman's policies never could.

Mr. Kinnock: At what point, then, will unemployment have increased enough, investment have fallen enough, enough companies have been closed and manufacturing output have fallen low enough to justify the Government cutting interest rates, which are the cause of the loss of capacity that threatens British industry?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's prescription is wrong. He will recall that on many occasions in recent months Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have suggested that I per cent. off interest rates would make a material difference. We have had 3.5 per cent. off interest rates in the past few months—and inflation has moved towards half what it was some months ago—and the figures are still coming down.

Mr. Hayes: As this Government are the first in history to spend more on health than on defence, does not my right hon. Friend find it deplorable that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), in his keynote speech to the Confederation of Health Service Employees, personally attacked—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that he must ask a question that falls within the Prime Minister's responsibility.

Mr. Hayes: Should not the country know that the national health service trust in Bradford means an additional £1 million in health care for patients, and that at Guy's hospital the trust means more patients treated? The minimum wage that the Labour party offers would starve the health service of £500 million.

The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend's strictures are all correct. There is an increasing wealth of good news about the activities of national health service trusts, and the second wave of trusts in due course will bring even more good news and better service for the patients in the national health service, which is our intention.

Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Prime Minister agree with the view of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), propounded in Chicago yesterday, that a single European currency would take the heart out of the purpose of this Parliament?

The Prime Minister: If this Parliament believed that, it would not vote for it and it would not happen.

Mr. Quentin Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the example of Liverpool provides in microcosm the most salutary lesson of the consequences of a Labour Government?

The Prime Minister: I would most certainly agree. It is an illustration of Labour government in practice which I believe the country will observe and not like.

Sir Patrick Duffy: Is the Prime Minister aware that whatever pillars may be involved in the construction of the European temple, a defence pillar is not yet considered practical and workable within western alliance parliamentary circles and nor is it considered desirable in eastern Europe? Does he agree that nothing which might cut across NATO's rule or duplicate its military structure is desirable?

The Prime Minister: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his well-deserved honour in the Queen's birthday honours list. I entirely agree that our defence interests are such that they must be based on NATO in the

future, as they have been in the past. NATO has served us outstandingly well over the past 40 years and it will, I trust, serve us equally well in the future.

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marshall: In the course of his busy day, will my right hon. Friend consider the consequences of the abolition of the dock labour scheme, which will lead to much greater activity in scheme ports such as Liverpool, giving them the chance to prosper again? Is it not significant that those who were loudest in their objections to the abolition of the scheme are now silent in its defence?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly consider the consequences of the abolition of the dock labour scheme, and I believe that they are very attractive. The House will recall that the abolition of that scheme was passed through the House in the teeth of opposition from the Labour party. Yet in Liverpool productivity has improved by at least 20 per cent. since the abolition of the scheme and will improve similarly elsewhere in the country. What we have seen in Liverpool, not only in the dock labour scheme but elsewhere, is the clearest possible illustration that the Labour party is locked in the past and has no place in the future.

Mr. Anderson: What is the Prime Minister's reply to those who argue that the Government's current troubles are due to indecisiveness at the very top?

The Prime Minister: I can be wholly decisive and tell them that they are wrong.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Jones: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will resist every attempt, whether from Europe or from the Labour party, to pressurise us to have a minimum wage? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in addition to the extra unemployment that it would create, it would particularly hit those who find it difficult to find jobs now, such as the disabled, women and ethnic minorities—a lesson which is understood by Mr. Eric Hammond, even if it is not understood by the leader of the Labour party.

The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend a categoric assurance on that. The Labour party may continue with its policy of a minimum wage, but it has few friends left for it. As Mr. Hammond said just the other day:
It would damage workers desperately and unless Labour can win the votes of such people, they will not win and will not deserve to.
He is right on both counts. They will not win and they certainly do not deserve to.

Q6. Miss Lestor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Miss Lestor: Bearing in mind the previous Prime Minister's commitment to give the highest priority to children's rights, as agreed at the summit last year, the Government's failure as yet to ratify the convention on the rights of the child and the almost daily reporting of the violation of children's rights in some form or another in Britain, will the right hon. Gentleman now give a pledge to implement the Gulbenkian recommendations to appoint a commissioner for children as the Labour party has pledged?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady should recognise that the Children Act 1989 is the best Act for the future of children that this Parliament has ever passed.

Mr. Tim Smith: In the light of a possible rail dispute, will my right hon. Friend have another look at employment legislation and, in particular, the possible introduction of measures designed to protect the consumer and the general public against strikes called overnight and at very short notice?

The Prime Minister: I shall be happy to do so.

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wallace: Has the Prime Minister yet had time to consider the letter sent to him last week by the chief executive of the Scottish Salmon Growers Association describing the present plight of the industry due to the dumping on the European market of Norwegian salmon? In the past, the European Community has been slow to deal with these matters. As the future of many businesses are at stake, what steps do the Government intend to take to inject some urgency into dealing with the crisis?

The Prime Minister: I understand the problem of the Scottish salmon industry, which we are examining at the moment in the light of the letter that we have received. I propose to discuss that matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and then I will reply fully.

Sir Robert Rhodes James: My right hon. Friend commanded great support and confidence for his policy for safe havens for the Kurds. Is he aware that some of us are becoming deeply concerned about the possibility of the

abandonment of the Kurds? Would not it be a good idea if British politicians speaking to American audiences reminded them of their responsibilities rather than talking drivel about Europe?

The Prime Minister: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir R. Rhodes James) on his well-deserved honour bestowed in the Queen's 'birthday honours list. As my hon. Friend will know, our purpose in creating safe havens in northern Iraq was to provide immediate humanitarian relief in conditions of safety, and to create the confidence for the Kurds to return safely to their homes. I believe that had we not done so, many thousands and perhaps many hundreds of thousands of Kurds would have died. Happily, many of them have now returned safely home and the safe havens continue in being, for the purpose for which they were originally set up.

Mr. Alton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Alton: In the absence of refuse collection services in some parts of Liverpool for the past three months, does the Prime Minister agree that it is scandalous that Liverpool residents have been sent bills for £70.99 for poll tax unpaid by other people in that city? Does he agree that that offends against every principle of natural justice and that, in connection with the new local tax, there ought to be a provision in law to ensure a right to redress in such circumstances for citizens hit in that way?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman points out yet another example of the sheer inefficiency of the present Liverpool council, and the way in which the people of Liverpool have been extremely badly treated as a result of its activities. Residents' bills in Liverpool are undoubtedly a good deal higher than they need to be because, as the Labour leader in Liverpool has admitted, it costs four times as much to pick up litter in Liverpool as it does elsewhere. The conclusion for the people of Liverpool must be obvious—no Labour Members and no Labour council.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Farm Woodland (Variation) Scheme 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Speaker: Ten-minute Bill motion. Mr. John Hughes.

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Sit down please. If hon. Members would clear the Chamber, I could see who was rising on a point of order.

Mr. David Ashby: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the gross discourtesy of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes)? According to the Order Paper he is to present a ten-minute Bill, and I came to the Chamber, as did many other hon. Members, expecting to hear the Bill presented, and to hear the arguments on it, but the hon. Gentleman has not turned up. That is a gross discourtesy to the House, and I feel that the fact that it has happened should be a matter of record.

Mr. Speaker: It may be a matter of record; it is not a point of order.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you bear it in mind that when you hear complaints from Tory Members about a Labour Member who has been held up—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Skinner: Will you bear it in mind, Mr. Speaker, that it was on the way from that posh gambling den at Lloyd's that my hon. Friend was held up in the traffic? Will you remember, too, that at 3 o'clock last Tuesday morning the Tory hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) was not here to conduct the Adjournment debate that you kindly granted him. I never heard any Tory Members complain about his absence; they were all asleep in the Tea Room.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) is not here and we have to move on to the next business.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to say, before I take any more points of order, that it would enable hon. Members to participate in the subsequent debate if they refrained from raising with me points of order that are not really points of order at all.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: It is a difficult decision to make, but I will call Mr. Michael Brown first.

Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a serious point, and one which I would ask you to consider. The 10-minute rule provides hon. Members with a highly valued parliamentary slot and, over the past 12 or 13 years, many of us in the House have sought an opportunity to introduce a 10-minute Bill but have failed to be successful under the system that now operates. I make no complaint about that

system, Mr. Speaker, but as this is the second occasion on which an hon. Member has failed to present his Bill to the House, is not there a case for the Select Committee on Procedure to investigate whether it is right and proper for hon. Members to take this valuable slot and then not have the courtesy to be here to present their Bill to the House?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us have one hon. Member at a time. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to refer the matter to the Procedure Committee, he may do so. It is not a matter for me.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You, Sir, are the custodian of the Standing Orders of the House, one of which governs the allocation of Members to Committees. Two Members of this House stood for election under the same slogan—"MP on a workers' wage". One of the candidates in the Walton by-election is standing under the same slogan and on the same platform. If that woman, Ms. Lesley Mahmood, is elected in Walton, will you count her as a Labour Member?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer hypothetical questions.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman may be called, but I must first hear the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow).

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) intended to seek leave to introduce a Bill setting out some aspects of the Labour party's immigration policy. I think that that would have been of great interest to the country. I understand that, with private Members' Bills, if the hon. Member in question is not here, it is possible for another hon. Member to introduce the Bill on his behalf. Is it the same with a 10-minute Bill? I feel that the public would really like to know what the Labour party's immigration policy is.

Mr. Speaker: No, it is not in order to proceed in that way. The Bill is not an Order of the Day.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The trouble with some points of order is that they are not points of order at all. We would be well advised to get on with the debate, which will give hon. Members the opportunity to put serious points to the House rather than raise bogus points of order.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Well, what is it?

Mr. Nicholls: The Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) has almost been presented on two occasions, and it seems reasonable to expect that, on a third occasion, it will indeed be presented. My point of order to you, Mr. Speaker, arises under the heading "Varieties of Expenditure" at page 177 of "Erskine May", which states:
the existence of the Social Security Fund cannot be used by private Members as a means of evading the basic rule that a net charge cannot be imposed"—


[HON. MEMBERS: "Here is the hon. Member!"] As you, Mr. Speaker, will acknowledge in a moment or two, there could not be a better time for my point of order to be heard.
If leave is given to bring in the Bill, there will be unrestricted immigration and, under the terms of the Bill, there will be a direct and immediate charge to public funds for the dependants of those immigrants. My point of order is this, Mr. Speaker: can we even entertain giving leave for such a Bill to be brought in today? The rules are perfectly clear. If we are to enlarge the scope of the social security fund in that way, it can only be done following a proposal by the Crown. The measure allowing unrestrained immigration at the taxpayers' expense is a Labour measure; it has not been brought forward by the Crown. I should like to know, Mr. Speaker, whether you feel that it would be in order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has shot himself in the foot by using the phrase, "If leave is given to bring in the Bill". We have not heard what the hon. Member in question wishes to say. [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Gentleman is here now."] Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman was not here when the title of the Bill was read out, and we cannot go back now.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There must have been many occasions on which hon. Members should have been here to present Bills or open Adjournment debates but were not. Often there is a jolly good excuse, and we must be fair-minded. But when an hon. Member walks into the Chamber before we move on to the next business and still does not present his Bill, it becomes inexcusable.

Mr. Speaker: I think that I must hear the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes).

Mr. John Hughes: I apologise for being late, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, I was lobbied by a considerable number of Tory Members of Parliament about the Lloyd's question. I beg leave to speak to my important ten-minute Bill.

Mr. Speaker: We cannot take it now. The hon. Gentleman was not here at the time I called him. We must move on to the next business.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I ask hon. Members to sit down. We have had our fun.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly resume his seat?

Mr. Howarth: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall give the hon. Gentleman one last chance. I should not like to ask him at this stage of a Parliament to leave the Chamber for having refused to obey the Chair. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.

Opposition Day

14TH ALLOTTED DAY

Water Industry

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move,
That this House notes with alarm the level of profits made by the water companies and the huge salary increases of senior management since privatisation; and condemns Her Majesty's Government for its failure to ensure that the interests of water consumers and the environment are given greater priority than the interests of shareholders.
Although Conservative Members may not think so., this debate is important because nowhere can we see more clearly than on the issue of water privatisation the priorities of a Conservative Government. The outrage of vastly increased water bills at a time of scandalous profits and massive leaps in salaries for the top management show that the Government care little for water consumers, just as they care little for the environment. With this Government, profits come first, so that the issues that we shall discuss today are serious.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who must be most grateful to his colleagues for raising points of order until he was able to arrive and who has been left to carry the can, will understand when I say that the debate raises issues that are serious enough to warrant the attention of the Secretary of State and of the Minister of State. Perhaps I should explain to the House why they are absent.

Mr. Tim Smith: Where is the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)?

Mrs. Taylor: The Minister of State telephoned me yesterday to offer his apologies and to say that his absence meant no disrespect to the Labour party. He explained that he could not be present today because of an important engagement. He went on to explain that the Secretary of State could not be present because of an important engagement. In fact, the Secretary of State for the Environment is visiting the Minister of State in his constituency. The absence of the Secretary of State and of the Minister of State may or may not have been intended as a slight to the Labour party; that does not worry us. What matters is that it is a mark of disrespect to the millions of people who face hardship because of their water bills, to the families who are worried about the quality of the drinking water, and to everyone who cares about the environment.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the hon. Lady accept that it would also be in order for the Secretary of State for Social Security to be present in view of the considerable hardship that she has mentioned, and the fact that there is no rebate scheme or element of income support to help those on the lowest incomes who face fixed bills which they cannot afford to pay?

Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, which highlights many of hon. Members' concerns. I hope that Conservative Members, who must


have had representations from their constituents, as we have had from ours, will voice the worries and fears of many people.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Will the hon. Lady tell us where the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) is? Why is he not here this afternoon?

Mrs. Taylor: As I am responsible for Labour party policies on these matters, it is appropriate that I am here.
Today's debate is not only extremely important, but extremely timely. In recent weeks, the profits of the water companies have been announced. We have heard of the vast increases in salaries for top management. Only today we have had the report of the Director General of Water Services which shows that the interests of shareholders predominate over the interests of everyone else. That cannot be the right priority for an industry that is so fundamental to the needs and interests of everyone.

Mr. Tim Devlin: How does the hon. Lady explain the £4 million of investment that Northumbrian Water is putting in to the Teesside area which will be followed by investment all round the country on an unprecedented scale to repair old sewers and water pipes which are falling in because the previous Labour Government slashed investment in the industry?

Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read the annual report published today. It shows us in detail the shortfall in investment programmes—and I will come to that point later. I am sure that the House wants to be reminded of the figures for investment under the previous Labour Government compared with the figures for investment under the Conservative Government since 1979. During the period of the previous Labour Government, the average annual investment was £1,254 million a year. During the years of Conservative Government since 1979, the average investment in the water industry has been £922 million. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin).

Mr. David Nicholson: I fear that the hon. Lady's figures are grossly misleading. I have the actual figures before me. During the period of the previous Labour Government, investment at 1989 prices fell from £1·4 billion to £1·1 billion. Under the Conservative Government, investment has risen from just under £1 billion to almost £2·4 billion in the current year.

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has proved that he cannot read statistics either. He raises an interesting question. It is not long ago that the water industry was not considered to be part of the realm of party politics and party debate. It is not long ago that the objectives for the water industry were similar among all parties. That has been the case since the Victorian era. I remind Conservative Members that it was the Conservative Joseph Chamberlain—and I am glad to see the hon. Member for Stockton, South nod in agreement—who said of the water industry:
It is difficult and indeed almost impossible to reconcile the rights and interests of the public to the claims of an individual company seeking as its natural and legitimate object the largest private gain.
Much of the advance in life expectancy and many of the triumphs over disease were as much an achievement of

better water supplies and better sewerage systems as an achievement of medical breakthrough. The House should remind itself of what has changed since those days.
In the past few years the Government, hamstrung by their dogma and extremism, have looked round for other industries to privatise. There was little left, so they descended on the water industry. There was a feeling in the water industry that the Conservative Government had deliberately held back investment to pave the way for privatisation.
Some callous remarks of the Ministers of the day should have prepared us for what has happened since. When answering a question about water quality and water bills, the former Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), uttered the immortal words, "Let them drink Perrier." Given that attitude, what has followed is perhaps not surprising.
Let us consider what has happened to the water industry in the past 18 months. I start with price increases. I remind the House that it was the present Secretary of State for Employment who promised during the Second Reading of the Water Bill in 1988:
We are determined to ensure that the customer gets these benefits … in the price that he pays for water".—[0fficial Report, 8 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 525.]
Since that statement, there have been large price increases, such as in the year of privatisation. Water charges have increased by 30 per cent. on average, with every company forcing through the maximum price rises on virtually every occasion. In the past three years, the increases have amounted to more than 50 per cent. for some consumers.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: As the hon. Lady is clearly setting her face against the idea of price increases, and as the Labour party is committed to renationalising the water industry, where is the money to come from?

Mrs. Taylor: Many people are worried about where the money is going at present.
The price increases that I have quoted have been the average increases across the country as a whole. The position has been much worse for many people, especially where companies have overloaded their increases on to standing charges, thus often hitting hardest those who can least afford to pay more. Welsh Water has increased its standing charges by 60 per cent., presumably as part of its campaign for a flat-rate charge for every house in Wales, which is what some of my hon. Friends have called "the water poll tax". Other companies have adopted a similar approach.
I am sure that many colleagues have, like me, received letters almost daily from their constituents, especially from pensioners who keep a close record of their spending. A letter from one of my constituents shows that in the past two years the standing charges in the Yorkshire Water area have increased by 125 per cent. for sewerage and by 162 per cent. for water.
At one time, water bills were a relatively minor item of expenditure, but they are now a major problem for many families and cause grave hardship. That is why, in the past year, more than 900,000 summonses have been issued to people who could not pay their water bills.

Mr. William O'Brien: I appreciate my hon. Friend's references to standing charges because of which it is significant to note that the people who use the least pay the most in unit costs for their water. My hon. Friend has referred to what has happened in the Yorkshire Water area in the past 18 months, but if she goes a little further back she will see that standing charges have increased by nearly 400 per cent. in the past five years. She is therefore correct to draw attention to standing charges, on which I hope that she will dwell a little further because they most affect those who use the least.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. From his long interest in the water industry, I know that he will share my concern about the problems facing many households and families. Indeed, some of his constituents have had extra problems because of metering trials in their areas.

Mr. Alan Williams: My hon. Friend has referred to the 900,000 people who have received summonses. Will she remind the House that the hardship that they face is not only the summons itself and the fact that very often the court costs amount to more than the one month's instalment that has been missed, but there is the far more important fact that, once summonsed, those 900,000 people will be placed on credit blacklists, as a result of which people who cannot afford to buy things outright are debarred from credit and even from rentals, and that that punishment stays with them for six years?

Mrs. Taylor: My right hon. Friend is right. The problem causes all sorts of hardship to the families involved. One of the horrors is that many of the families affected previously had no form of debt whatever and had not got into such difficulties.

Mr. Robin Squire: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, especially as she has given way several times. Let there be no doubt that hon. Members on both sides of the House are worried about those who find themselves in debt. However, with great respect, the hon. Lady has not yet answered the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones). He said that, faced with a £28 billion investment programme and a commitment to nationalise, the Labour party would have to find the money either out of taxation or, in fairness, out of prices. If she would reduce prices, where would the money come from?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman must bide his time. I shall come to the question of profits shortly. Before that I want to talk about some of the other burdens faced by many people, especially those who are worried about the possible introduction of metering, which could have a devastating effect on many families.
The Opposition are totally against universal compulsory metering or, indeed, any form of metering designed solely to enhance the profits of the water companies. No one should be denied access to water simply because of price, not least in view of the public health implications. Those who advocate metering as a solution should look carefully at the trials that have taken place, including those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). Many hardships and problems have been created by metering.
I have dealt with what has been happening to prices. In view of what has happened to prices during the past 18 months, it is perhaps not surprising that profits have

rocketed. The profits for this year range from 17 per cent. for Thames Water and 60 per cent. for Southern Water, at the bottom of the list, to 185 per cent. for North West Water, 224 per cent. for Welsh Water and an incredible 369 per cent. forecast profit for Northumbrian Water. Those figures are so staggering that they need little further comment. But they must be seen as a slap in the face to all consumers.
The increased profits have been matched by increased salaries for top management. Many salaries have doubled in the two years or so since privatisation. Figures were published in The Sunday Times last week. Most of them were accurate, although I ought to make one correction. The chairman of Anglian Water has taken a salary cut. His salary has now fallen to £71,000 because he has gone part time. However, for chairmen and top managers that is not the end of the story. As well as huge salary increases, top management has also had very lucrative perks, not least the share options at flotation.
I have here the figures for the gains that would have been made by senior managers if they had taken up their full share option and sold at midday yesterday, which was not when prices were at their peak. Last year's accounts showed that more than 10 million shares were made available to chairmen, executive directors and others in senior management. I shall give a few examples of what that perk could have meant in practice. The chairman of Anglian Water came off worst. His share option would have realised £22,000 if it had been sold yesterday. The chairman of North West Water was given an option on 122,000 shares and would have made a profit yesterday of £74,000. He is not alone in that bracket.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will my hon. Friend comment on the observations of many of my constituents in Cumbria and the north-west of England who feel concerned about the figures that were published in The Sunday Times at the weekend? They cannot understand how the water authorities can find money to pay such exorbitant salaries and make investments in companies that have nothing to do with the water industry, while at the same time major works remain outstanding on, for example, sewer outfalls, sewage plants and the relining of sewers. People want the authorities to spend their money in those important areas.

Mrs. Taylor: People in the north-west will be concerned about the chairman of North West Water being able to make over £74,000 from the disposal of his shares. The share option that was made available to senior management should not, in the view of most water ratepayers and consumers, have been a first priority.
Not only has the chairman of North West Water had that advantage. The chairman of Severn Trent Water could have realised £69,000; the chairman of Thames Water, £71,000; and the chairman of Welsh Water, had he sold his shares yesterday, could have realised £78,300. That is all in addition to their salaries. The perks to top management may have brought them in total as much as £10 million, all in addition to their salaries.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Has the hon. Lady evidence to suggest that any of those people have disposed of their shares, or is she uttering just a nasty little innuendo?

Mrs. Taylor: I wonder what the hon. Gentleman thought was the purpose of the share option at the time. It


is common for directors to be given such perks. I am complaining about that type of priority taking precedence over the need for investment in the water industry.

Mr. Jones: rose—

Mrs. Taylor: I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman. [HON MEMBERS: "Give way".]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you agree that, when people outside the House are referred to, we have a duty to ensure that what is said is true, since it may be repeated outside? Have you had any intimation from the hon. Lady that what she is saying about people in the water industry is true?

Mr. Speaker: We must all calculate the weight we put on the freedom of speech which we enjoy here. What the hon. Lady has said is not a matter for me, and I have no idea whether or not it is true.

Mr. Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Lady to say that the perks to which she referred took priority over investment decisions when the water industry currently has a £28 billion investment programme?

Mr. Speaker: It is in order for the hon. Lady to make her own speech in her own way. Thanks to the slightly earlier start that the debate has had, it may be possible for me to call the hon. Member to speak and to make those points.

Mrs. Taylor: I appreciate why Conservative Members are so sensitive on these issues. I should not like to have to defend the situation that the Government have created.
I come to what has happened to services since privatisation. I was struck by a briefing document sent to me today by one of my hon. Friends who represents an area covered by the Severn Trent authority. It said that the briefing was to be used when citing the achievements of Severn Trent since privatisation. On turning over the briefing document, the page was blank. That represents great honesty on the part of that water company.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I have not seen the briefing paper to which the hon. Lady refers, but if the reverse of the page was blank, I will tell her an item that should have appeared on it. Any company in Britain that could invest in the current year double its profits must be giving priority to investment. I doubt whether that would have happened had it remained in the public sector.

Mrs. Taylor: Severn Trent has invested a great deal of money outside the water industry on acquiring other companies.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will have read reports about the problems that have arisen in the last year or so with Britain's rivers, which are now more polluted with sewage than before privatisation. The number of sewage pollution incidents has increased by 20 per cent., to 6,274. When asked to comment on that aspect, the Minister for the Environment and Countryside—who is not present today—is reported to have said that he would be asking for something to be done. The same hon. Gentleman was

a Minister at the Department of the Environment at the time of privatisation, when the Government gave water companies immunity from prosecution in respect of most of the pollution incidents about which the Minister now complains.
The Government themselves must bear much of the responsibility. It will not wash for the Minister to say that something must be done. The Government drew up the rules that make it so difficult for the National Rivers Authority to prosecute water companies.

Sir Peter Hordern: Perhaps the hon. Lady will tell the House what will be the cost of compensating the nationalised companies if Labour was to return to power—because nationalisation is a pledge in its programme? Will she also say what the effect will be on the public sector borrowing requirement, given the present capital expenditure programme of £ 1·25 billion a year, and total capital expenditure programme of more than £20 billion? Has the hon. Lady taken into account the impact of that on the public sector borrowing requirement? What effect does she think that such an absurd programme would have on a Labour Government's economic policy?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman misses the point that I was making, but I will deal with his question. Yes, we still intend to return the water industry to public ownership. Many of the Government's own statements about the public sector borrowing requirement are most peculiar, but in fact the whole of that borrowing would not have to come out of the PSBR. We had confirmation of that from the Library only today.
Pollution incidents have increased dramatically over the past year, partly due to the immunity granted by the Government at the time of privatisation. That problem is made worse because the companies are not meeting their spending targets. Figures published by the Director General of Water Services show that the combined programme for sewage treatment plants is way behind target—by £67·4 million, or 23·7 per cent. of projected expenditure. I hope that does not give any comfort to Conservative Members, because it alarms many people throughout the country.
There is no comfort to be gained either from the situation in respect of drinking water. At the time of the Water Act 1989, we were told that all would be well because of the establishment of a drinking water inspectorate—which turns out to be 20-odd civil servants in the Department of the Environment, whose job it is to collect the information that water companies give them and to visit the companies occasionally after giving an average of five weeks' notice. We have not seen the improvement that could have been made, but instead there have been several worrying incidents.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Taylor: Not for a moment. I have given way rather a lot, and I want to make progress.
One of the most alarming incidents was the outbreak of cryptosporidia in north Humberside between December 1989 and May 1990. It was responsible for 477 cases of infection. Cryptosporidia is a parasite that is often water-borne. A recent independent report by the public health laboratory service shows that that was the case with the incident in north Humberside, but we now also know


that the outbreak was caused by the bypassing of slow sand filters at the Barmby water treatment works. It appears that that was done because Yorkshire Water was taking shortcuts to avoid water shortages in the area. There is a direct correlation between the bypassing of filters and the incidence of that illness in the area. Although Yorkshire Water's actions may have protected confidence in its shares for a time, they were carried out at the expense of drinking water in the area.
Section 54 of the Water Act 1989 empowers the drinking water inspectorate to recommend to the Secretary of State that a supplier be prosecuted for supplying water that is unfit for consumption. So far, that has not been done. If the inspectorate does not recommend prosecution when it makes its first report to the Secretary of State in July, we shall be able to draw our own conclusion.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Taylor: I am sorry, but I must make progress. This is a short debate, and I have already given way several times.
The director general's report published today shows that water companies are falling behind with their investment programmes for drinking water treatment, so slippage is taking place in that area, too. Indeed, the report shows that there are investment problems in all the important areas and that the water companies never meet their investment targets on water resources, water treatment, water distribution, sewerage or sewage treatment. The only area in which expenditure is higher than planned is "management and general". Perhaps that should not surprise us because, although incidents such as that in north Humberside have taken place, and although sewage pollution is increasing, water companies have been turning their attention to other matters. A chairman of a water company now says that he spends 60 per cent. of his time on water services and 40 per cent. on diversification.
Severn Trent has spent—

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Will the hon. Lady give way on that subject?

Mrs. Taylor: I have given way enough—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I give the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) the same message? There may be time for her to raise those matters in her own speech.

Mrs. Taylor: I have given way 11 times, Mr. Speaker, so I need to make some progress.
Severn Trent has spent £212 million on a waste disposal company. A waste subsidiary of Northumbrian Water is trying to obtain planning permission to build incinerators for industrial and clinical waste. Welsh Water is buying hotels and shares in South Wales Electricity. South West Water is part of a franchise for a television company, and other water companies have embarked on land disposal plans.
The case of North West Water and Kingswater Park is causing considerable concern to colleagues in the north-west, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). A valuable piece of green countryside—the only piece easily available to those in the eastern part of the

inner city of Manchester—is now threatened by development. In today's report, the Director General of Water Services has expressed concern that companies could
transfer sites at relatively low values to property subsidiaries for them to develop at a later stage.
North West Water's plans seem to fit that description, and I hope that the regulator will examine the case carefully —although, of course, North West Water is not the only company that is disposing of land; Severn Trent and Thames have the highest number of disposals.
I have tried, in the limited time available, to present a picture of what has happened to the water industry's priorities under the Government since privatisation. 'What the industry needs, and what it lacks, are public control, public accountability and consideration of the public interest. We want to see the industry back in public ownership so that the right priorities can be guaranteed. That cannot happen on day one of a Labour Government, but, from that day on, a Labour Secretary of State will use the powers under the Water Act 1989 to instruct the Director General of Water Services and the National Rivers Authority on their priorities as a first step towards putting the interests of consumers and the environment before those of shareholders.
The public are thoroughly fed up with the excesses of the Government. All the worst fears that we felt at the time of privatisation have been confirmed, or worse. Prices have risen by at least 30 per cent.; profits have been scandalous, increasing in one instance by 360 per cent. in a single year. Top management salaries and perks have simply added insult to injury. Moreover, the so-called environmental improvements are not being achieved as they should be. The drinking water inspectorate has proved toothless; the increase in sewage pollution incidents must surely shatter any defence that the Government can mount.
No wonder the Secretary of State chose to hot-foot it to Lancashire today, and the Minister of State with him. They may be avoiding the questions today, but they will not be able to avoid them when the election comes. The scandal of water privatisation will be a nail in the Government's coffin.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
`welcomes the success which the water industry has achieved in the first full year after privatisation in substantially expanding investment to improve the environment and standards of service to customers; endorses the firm and fair system of regulation that has been established to protect customers; and looks forward to the benefits from this massive investment programme and improved efficiency in the years to come.'.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) began by complaining that neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside was present. As my hon. Friend the Minister took pains to explain to the hon. Lady yesterday, my right hon. Friend is in the north-west today, attending a series of meetings with local authorities, many of them Labour controlled. Those meetings were arranged some time ago. On reflection, the hon. Lady will probably decide that her complaint was ungracious, and that that point, like so many of her others, was a bad one.
The House had had to endure a predictable but none the less depressing half-hour diatribe from the hon. Lady, who took the opportunity to attack the water industry and those working in it. She sought to convey the impression that nothing had been achieved in the two years since privatisation and that every challenge currently faced by the water industry had somehow been caused by that privatisation. In short, it was all good, knockabout Opposition day stuff.
If I may be candid, I do not believe that it lies in the mouth of the Labour party to criticise the water industry. Labour cut capital investment in the industry by one third in real terms when it was last in office and cut investment in sewage treatment by a half. In 1976, so desperate was the economy under Labour that it had an overnight moratorium on capital works in the water industry, followed by the stringent financial limitations and Government—imposed cuts in borrowing limits.
It was of little surprise, therefore, that in 1987 the Environment Select Committee reported:
…the most immediate reason why water authority effluents fall short of the present consent standards is because from the mid-1970s until the early 1980s there was a steady drop in investment by the water authorities in sewerage and sewage disposal"—
a drop which coincided exactly with the period of the previous Labour Government, so we shall take no lectures from the Labour party on enhancing water quality.

Mr. O'Brien: Is the Minister aware of the considerable time and money that was spent by local authorities in establishing ring-main circuits to prevent failures in water and in building sewage works to ensure that such works continued? That was undertaken well before privatisation. Is he aware that, following privatisation, 729 of my constituents are facing compulsory water metering, which they did not want and which is causing problems? That is what privatisation has achieved. What are the Minister's comments on the hardship that has been caused in my constituency by water meters?

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman cannot find any comment to rebut the assertion that under the previous Labour Government, and during the period of Labour's supposed stewardship, investment in the water industry declined substantially. Under the Water Act 1989, it was no longer sensible for water charges to be related to rateable values, and the water industry has been given some time to devise an alternative system.
We should all be interested to hear whether the Labour party would continue to base water charges on rateable values. We heard little about that from the hon. Member for Dewsbury, who failed to answer my hon. Friends the Members for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) and for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) about how she would manage to finance the £28 billion investment programme. Would she do so by increasing prices or taxes?

Mrs. Ann Taylor: rose—

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Lady failed to answer that question.

Mrs. Taylor: rose—

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Lady did not have the courtesy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for

Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) or to answer the question that was put to her, as Hansard will clearly show. Perhaps she would like to answer now. Does the Labour party intend to finance future investment by increasing prices or taxes?

Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way at last. We shall not waste money on the schemes to which water investment has been diverted. That is the answer to his specific point, but he has not replied to the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) about water metering. What is the Government's policy on water metering? Do they believe in choice? The Minister said that he was unaware of our opinion, but we have published our submission to the Director of Water Services on water charges. Will the Minister say whether the Government are likely to do the same, and will he give their attitude to metering? May I remind him of the average figures for investment under Labour and Conservative Governments? Labour spent £1,254 million a year, compared with £922 million under the Conservatives.

Mr. Baldry: I hope that everyone will read Hansard tomorrow, because the hon. Lady has been asked, on occasions too numerous to particularise, how a Labour Government would finance future investment in the water industry. On each occasion, she has refused point blank to answer the question.
The hon. Lady knows the Government's position on water metering because it is enshrined in the legislation. The water industry must now make its own proposals, which it will do.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: We can draw our conclusions from the point-blank refusal of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to answer straight questions about where the money will come from. My hon. Friend referred to the Select Committee's condemnation of the last Labour Government's record on water investment. Is he aware that members of the Select Committee were unanimous and that Labour and Conservative Members shared in that condemnation of the Labour Government's record?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There could not possibly be any defence of the failure of the last Labour Government's stewardship of the water industry. The country should note that when the Labour Government sought to finance investment in the industry out of central Government funds, they lamentably failed to do so. Privatisation of the water industry has opened the way for a dramatic, sustained increase in investment.

Mr. Charles Wardle: My hon. Friend is aware that, unlike Opposition Members, Conservative Members welcome water privatisation, especially the greater standards of professionalism among the management. Does my hon. Friend concede that there is concern about the K factor in the pricing formula? Is he aware that, over the past three years, Eastbourne Water increased its charges to customers by more than 100 per cent? Does he think that that is an unreasonable burden to lay on current customers because of persistent underfunding by previous Labour Governments? Will my hon. Friend at least review the K factor at an early opportunity?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that some of the immediate challenges faced by Eastbourne Water are due to lack of adequate investment in the past. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that I understand that, for the next three years, Eastbourne Water's K factor will drop to 2·5 per cent. and that from 1995–96 it will be zero.
Over the next 10 years, water companies will be carrying out the biggest ever programme of sustained investment.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Before the Minister moves on, will he deal with the important question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien)? The Government wish to convince the nation that they are committed to choice. Why do the constituents of Normanton have no right to choose water metering? Does the hon. Gentleman condemn the water authority for imposing that obligation on my hon. Friend's constituents? Does he believe that they should have the right to choose?

Mr. Baldry: The position on water metering is straightforward. Until recently, local government finance was based on rateable values, as were water charges. As we move from that, it does not seem sensible to continue to base water charges solely on rateable values. For that reason, water companies have come forward with an alternative water-charging system. I do not believe that water consumers have ever had a choice—nor have consumers of electricity or other such facilities—as to how they pay.

Mr. David Nicholson: I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend make the position clear. I am beginning to receive representations from constituents who are paying water rates on the basis of an antiquated rates system. The bulk of them have their water rates based on rateable values set 17 years ago, but, because of flat conversions and such like, the rateable values of a significant number were set recently. The latter group are aware of unfairnesses and of anomalies between what they have to pay and what their neighbours in similar or larger accommodation pay. My hon. Friend must impress on water companies the need to move towards an up-to-date and fair system of water charging.

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am surprised that Labour Members brought these issues before the House. I suspect that they were thoroughly canvassed before decisions were made on how the Water Bill should be implemented, as well as by the Standing Committee on the Bill.
Some £28 billion will be invested before the turn of the century and the water services associations tell us that more than £3 billion has already been invested to improve water quality. Between now and the turn of the century the water companies will spend £5,000 a minute on rebuilding the water industry's infrastructure, constructing new sewage treatment works and reservoirs, on improving drinking water where it is not yet up to standard, improving bathing waters and raising standards of service for customers.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware of the orchestrated attempts by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to put fear and alarm into the minds of constituents? A short time ago the hon. Lady issued press

releases in Wolverhampton suggesting that people were receiving a chemical cocktail in the water. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that under privatisation we have a duty to monitor water quality and to ensure that lies are not told about the system. I have a letter from the chairman of Severn Trent Water in which he states that the hon. Member's
silly reference is best answered by facts … The Wolverhampton area is fed by a number of water sources, ranging from local bore holes to the large river abstraction plant at Hampton Loade.
Bacteriology provides the most sensitive tests for quality, and in the Wolverhampton area … we have not had a single failure at source, reservoir or zone … despite the hundreds of samples taken. From a chemical point of view"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must not make a speech. In fairness to the House, she should not give a long quotation during an intervention. The usual method is to paraphrase and not to quote.

Mrs. Hicks: The chairman says that during 1990 over 99·9 per cent. of tests undertaken proved satisfactory in meeting today's tough quality standards in Wolverhampton. That gives the lie to the hon. Lady's press release.

Mr. Speaker: Did I hear the word lie coming from the hon. Lady's mouth?

Mrs. Hicks: I apologise for the use of the word lie. I should have said that it was a misrepresentation of the facts by the hon. Lady.

Mr. Baldry: It behoves us all, and especially those of us who have responsible positions on the Front Benches, to address these matters with care. It is not in the interests of the hon. Member for Dewsbury or her party to misrepresent the position, as is sometimes clearly the case. I have absolutely no doubt that those who work in the water industry and understand it will take careful note of the hon. Lady's frequent assertions and will treat them with the contempt that they deserve. Anglian Water, for example—

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baldry: No. The House listened to the hon. Lady for more than half an hour and most of her speech consisted of attacks on various people. She must allow other hon. Members to rebut some of the assertions that she freely made.
Anglian Water has a £4 billion investment programme under way. North West Water is investing £4·3 billion, while in Thames investment is not far below £4 billion. Progress is being made everywhere in enhancing water standards and in building structures such as a new ring main circuit round London—[Interruption.] I will set out the position. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) complains about a company spending only £4 billion on investing in enhancing water quality. The Labour party never managed to invest such sums in enhancing water quality. South West Water has completed 89 major projects in the past year and has almost 400 schemes in progress. Welsh Water's overall programme exceeds £1·7 billion, and work has commenced on four projects totalling £25 million which were not in its original programme. In short, companies such as Severn Trent,


Thames and others are spending more than £1 million a day on improving water treatment and distribution and sewage treatment—double their rate of profits.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: We are all very impressed by these investment figures, but are all the investments to which the Minister has referred water related?

Mr. Baldry: Yes.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister accept the point that has emerged from the recent figures on investment, which showed that the water companies have spent far more on diversification than on improving water quality?

Mr. Baldry: I shall come to the director general's report on that in a minute. The Opposition do not like the fact that the privatised water companies have managed to spend billions of pounds on enhancing water quality, because those companies' record under privatisation contrasts so starkly with the failure of the Labour party's stewardship to invest adequately in the water industry.
We heard a lot about profits from the hon. Member for Dewsbury today. One can only deduce from her attack on the water companies' profits that the Labour party would have preferred them to make losses. Those more in touch with reality take a more balanced view. The Guardian business page described the figures as
relatively modest profit and dividend increases.
The Independent said that the division of one third to shareholders and ploughing the remaining two thirds back into the business was
a split which is difficult to criticise".
Those two thirds ploughed back into the water industry represent part of the water companies' continuing programme of capital investment in the industry—a programme which is massive and unprecedented.
What concerns and interests most people is not the level of profits or the dividends paid on shares but the price of water. To keep matters in perspective, I should point out that water bills in the midlands recently rose by on average 5p a day. Domestic customers of Severn Trent Water are paying an average 38p per day, compared with 33p previously. On average, domestic customers pay 43p a day for their water—a few pennies more than the cost of a daily newspaper.
It is entirely reasonable to expect water consumers to make some contribution towards the costs of paying towards higher water standards, which everyone demands and which the Government are determined shall be delivered.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Reasonable people do not object to the price of water increasing to cover the investment programme, but many people on benefit who can receive no help with their vastly increased water charges over the past year, and people who have had to convert to water meters with their high standing charges, complain that they are paying a great deal for their water now. Yet Anglian's profits before tax have risen by 77 per cent., while its investment has risen by 19 per cent. and its dividends by 40 per cent. If that money is to be raised, surely it should be raised for investment, not to fatten profits and boost dividends—that is what people on low incomes object to.

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman's intervention gives me the chance to explain again. Two thirds of the profits about which he complains go back into investment in the industry. Even papers such as The Guardian acknowledge that the dividends taken from the remaining third are modest. The hon. Gentleman has reinforced my point—the water companies are behaving wholly responsibly by ensuring that large amounts of their profits are reinvested in the industry for the benefit of customers and consumers.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I should like the Minister to answer the point made by the Director General of Water Services who, only a month ago, wrote to each of the water authorities warning them that he understood their profit declarations to be excessive and commenting strongly that customers would expect to reap the benefits of greater profits. Comment in newspapers such as the Financial Times made it clear at the time that these excessive profits were not going back to investment or to the customers. So the person charged with this responsibility has found profits to be so large that he will take action in the coming months.

Mr. Baldry: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish, even inadvertently, to mislead the House. The director general has made no criticism of the water companies. He has said that he will look with care at their profits and dividends for this year. I have no doubt that that is entirely proper for a regulator and that is what he is doing. The water companies are reinvesting two thirds of their profits in the industry. If the hon. Gentleman looks back at the pages of the financial press and the financial pages of papers such as The Guardian and The Independent he will see that the way in which water companies have divided their profits and dividends has not been subject to criticism; rather those profits and dividends have been considered modest.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Minister will be aware that much of the profits about which he talks has been made as a result of the taxpayers' generosity at the insistence of the Government at the time of privatisation when they put £3·3 billion into the water industry. Has the Minister seen the report from Credit Lyonnais Laing, the City investment analyst, which says:
With the benefit of hindsight the financial framework set up at the time of privatisation was rather generous"?
Does not that explain why shareholders have been doing so well since privatisation?

Mr. Baldry: I shall explain yet again. The water companies have made profits this year, two thirds of which they are putting back into the industry. The hon. Lady ought to be careful about keeping on jumping to her feet to complain about profits, because every time she does that Conservative Members will simply ask her, "If the water industry is not to be funded from its profits or by its customers, from where is it to be funded?" Once again, I ask the hon. Lady to explain to the House what a future Labour Government intend to do—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady says sotto voce, but I hope that Hansard will record it, "We are not going to say". That is the comment of the Labour party.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman misheard. What I said was that we would not spend money on silly things such as television companies in which water companies should not be investing.

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Lady has still failed to explain how the Labour party will fund future investment in the water industry—[Interruption.] She says, "No, we won't".

Mrs. Ann Taylor: No.

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Lady should be careful about complaining about company profits.

Mr. Richard Holt: I am a former member of the Thames water authority board. It is now very different for people in the situation that I was once in. They now have money available. Too much has been made of the word "profit". What we are talking about is excess income over excess expenditure. We now have a far more efficient and lean water industry which is operating far better and that excess of money has been put back in. It is not a profit in an historical sense, because historically the water boards never could make a profit. Under nationalisation we stripped and tried hard, but we never got enough money out of any Government, Conservative or Labour, to make the investment which is now being made under this Conservative Government.

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes a good point and I continue to reiterate that privatisation has opened the way to massive investment in the water industry and the bulk of the profits are being reinvested in that industry.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baldry: No, the House clearly wants to make progress and I have much to say.
It is right that the industry should in part be funded from profits and that it is doing.
We must also acknowledge that, even after this year's price increase in water, water in Britain is good value compared with prices charged in other countries. Customers in Germany, France, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands all, on average, have to pay more for their water than we do here.
Privatisation has not of itself caused an increase in water charges. Privatisation has involved identifying all the requirements to ensure that the water industry meets agreed domestic and European Community standards, and costing those requirements and agreeing a capital programme to put them right. As I have made clear, that capital programme is massive and it is not unreasonable to expect customers who expect higher standards to pay a price for their water that enables the water companies to meet those higher standards.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baldry: No, I do not intend to give way again. I have given way on numerous occasions and I want to make progress.
What are those higher standards that we are achieving and seeking to achieve? The major priority of the water industry is the provision of good quality drinking water. We have set in place a robust regime to promote drinking water quality. That regime establishes an effective system for regulating water quality. It sets exacting standards which drinking water must achieve in order to be regarded as wholesome and specifies in detail the monitoring which water companies must carry out and ensures that the results are available on public registers.
The legislation also provided for the creation of the drinking water inspectorate to check that water companies are carrying out monitoring programmes satisfactorily, making the results available on the public registers, implementing their compliance programmes and achieving all the other standards in the regulations.
I am glad to say that the overall quality of our drinking water is excellent. However, to ensure that all our water supplies satisfy the stringent standards of the EC directive and water quality regulations, the water industry is investing in excess of £2 billion to ensure that, wherever possible, supplies be brought into compliance by 1995. That is a substantial commitment to continuing to strive to enhance drinking water quality.
Mention may be made of pesticides in drinking water. All the water companies with supplies that exceed the pesticide standards are carrying out programmes of remedial action designed to bring supplies into compliance as quickly as practicable. The EC has only once started infraction proceedings against the United Kingdom under the pesticides directive and that case proved unfounded. It has not started formal proceedings in any other case.
Just as the water industry is spending and investing billions of pounds enhancing drinking water quality, it is investing billions of pounds on improving sewage treatment. As the House knows, the Government are totally committed to meeting all the provisions of the EC urban waste water directive by the required dates. Those vary between 1995 and 2005 according to size and other criteria. The United Kingdom was one of those in the lead in pressing for agreement on that directive.
In comparison with many colleagues elsewhere in the Community, we start from a good position in relation to implementing that directive. The United Kingdom has the highest percentage of its population connected to a sewerage system—some 96 per cent.—compared with any of our partners and we achieve a percentage of treatment which stands comparison with any of our partners.
We start from a good position in relation to implementing the directive, but clearly there is more to be done to ensure that we reach and maintain the high standards that we all want. The water industry has already started work on the implementation programme, which it currently estimates will cost about £2·2 billion. However, such a large investment programme cannot be completed overnight. Schemes have to be planned and designed; planning procedures have to be gone through. The water industry is seeking to fulfil its obligations as fast as is humanly possible. On completion of the implementation programme we shall have a sewerage system which is one of the most comprehensive in Europe, and a model for other countries.
It is not possible to make all the improvements to our sewerage system overnight. The schemes often require extensive alterations to earlier systems, or complete replacement. Sites have to be found for new sewage works. Planning permissions have to be obtained. New sewage sludge disposal routes have to be developed.
Anyone who has any appreciation of the scale of the investment being carried out will recognise the practical challenges of completing the comprehensive programme of improvements now under way. Inevitably, given their nature and scale, this all takes time. But the investment, commitment and determination are there to carry out this work as speedily as is humanly possible.
Sewage treatment and disposal have always been at the very core of the water companies' business.
During the early 1980s, it was becoming clear that investment in the water industry had for far too long been depressed—especially during the supposed stewardship of the Labour Government—and that quality had begun to suffer.
The results of the 1985 river quality survey had shown that, while the quality of our rivers remained generally very good, water quality in many areas depended heavily on the quality of sewage treatment. When river quality has improved, this has generally been when improvements to sewage treatment have been carried out.
It was against that background that, in 1986, the Government made sure, with the establishment of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, that, for the first time, central information on the way that sewage works were performing was collected.
The first results were hardly encouraging: in 1986 no less than 23 per cent. of all sewage treatment works tested failed to meet the standards set for their discharges. Such a state of affairs could not continue.
The privatisation of water authorities provided the opportunity to see that things were put right. We therefore agreed with the water authorities that they should draw up accelerated improvement programmes to bring substandard sewage treatment works back into compliance with the terms of their discharge consents.
The objective was to get all the necessary improvements completed by 1992, although we recognised from the outset that some of the projects would involve extensive design and construction work, so that there would be a small proportion of cases in which it would not be humanly possible to achieve a 1992 target.
Much attention has mistakenly, misleadingly or malignly become focused on the temporary consent variations we granted the operation of works in circumstances where their performance could not reasonably be improved until the necessary rebuilding or extension of the works had been completed.
Let there be no mistake or misunderstanding: the object of this exercise is about improving performance, not about relaxing standards. I am thus encouraged by the performance figures for sewage treatment works published within the past few days. In 1986, the failure rate for sewage works was 23 per cent. By 1988 it had dropped to 17 per cent., and on the basis of the figures just announced, during 1990 the non-compliance rate had dropped to just 8 per cent.
Even making allowances for the effects on the figures of the time-limited consent variations which we granted, we believe that the true long-term performance of sewage works had improved to the stage where, in 1990, some 88 per cent. of works were already meeting their long-term performance measures.
Those who seek continually to criticise the water companies might care to reflect that the current investment programme did not get under way until the end of 1989, and it inevitably takes time to plan and to build even a modest improvement scheme; and many of these are major civil engineering projects.
Given that the performance of sewage works is normally assessed over a rolling 12-month period, it not

unreasonably takes a little time after the completion of improvements before the results can fully show through as better performance. Every reasonable person should therefore be delighted at the progress that the figures are already showing. Many further new improvement schemes are already being completed and performance will thus have improved still further over the past six months since the latest figures were prepared.
I am, of course, conscious that the annual report of the Director General of Water Services, which was published today, and to which reference has already been made, showed some slippage of the programmes during the first six or seven months to March 1990. That is not surprising. The report covers a period of time that was entirely transitional, before and during the flotation of the new water companies and covering a time when the companies were inevitably coming to terms with the new management structures and new financial regimes. As the director general, Ian Byatt, himself acknowledged earlier today:
These figures reflect the progress during 1989–90. This was a difficult time for the companies as they were adjusting to the new regulatory regime and also to planning the large investment programme they have to execute over the next few years.
And, as the accompanying press notice makes clear,
in its report, OFWAT stresses that one year's figures are unlikely to be material".
The director general's report confirms, however, that the spending planned by the water companies during the financial year just ended was expected to reduce the shortfall significantly, and that, in his judgment, the companies were making every human effort to ensure that their improvement programmes were completed on time.
I have spoken about the works being done to enhance drinking water quality and to improve sewage works performance. May I, for the sake of completeness, comment briefly on the works being done to improve the quality of our bathing waters and the work being done generally to promote water resources.
Clearly, a high priority for the water industry is the improvement of bathing water. We are firmly committed to meeting the standards laid down in the EC bathing water directive as quickly as possible.
Progress is being made. In 1986 51 per cent. of bathing waters complied. Last year, by contrast, a record 77 per cent. of our bathing waters complied. This year we have a record 35 blue flag awards in the United Kingdom. Fifteen improvement schemes, affecting 21 bathing waters, are now completed, and many more schemes are scheduled for completion over the next five years.
Last November an accelerated and enhanced programme of improvement schemes was announced, providing for a further £600 million to be spent in addition to the £1·4 billion programme of spending and investment in improving our bathing water already announced in 1989. Again, billions of pounds are being invested to improve standards and fulfil tough regulatory requirements.
The past two or three years of exceptionally dry weather experienced in various parts of the country, especially in the south and south-east, have brought home the fact that water is a valuable commodity drawn from a finite resource.
The proper stewardship of these resources is now the responsibility of the National Rivers Authority. This spring the NRA has published a preliminary report entitled, "Demands and Resources of Water Undertakers


in England and Wales", which gives the result of a preliminary survey of the prospects for public water supplies to the year 2011. The report shows that most water companies have the resources and are considering possible new developments sufficient to meet existing and prospective demands.
The NRA has also recently commissioned a study to help investigate a wide range of strategic options for the development of water resources, including major new water transfer schemes. It will take a fresh look at options hitherto considered uneconomic, such as a national grid and desalination.
A massive investment programme is already under way to provide improvements to enable customers to enjoy the water supply they require at all times. For example, London's water supply into the 21st century is being made secure by the construction of the London water ring main, which is currently under way and is due to be completed by the mid-1990s. The first section of the ring main came into service on Sunday, and is providing water to hundreds of thousands of people in south London. It is a major feat of civil engineering, and when completed it will be twice as long as the channel tunnel.
A number of development options for water resources are being explored by individual water companies to meet local shortfalls and deal with prospective additional regional demands. They range from sinking boreholes, to the construction of local pipeline transfer schemes, to the building of major reservoirs. A strategy for developing water resources must not lose sight of the importance of conservation.
I hope that the House will feel that I have been able to put the continuing achievements of the water industry into a somewhat more reasonable balance. Much is being done, massive investment is committed to doing more. In every area of the land, millions of pounds are being invested. If the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Opposition Members visit different parts of the country, they will find that more than 200 projects involving the investment of more than £1 million each have been completed since privatisation. At present, more than 600 projects costing over £1 million each are in progress. Billions of pounds are being spent on enhancing drinking water quality, rebuilding and refurbishing sewage treatment works, improving bathing water standards and guaranteeing future water supplies.
Such a scale of investment would never have been possible under a state-run, state-financed, nationalised industry. It will never be possible under a future Labour-controlled, state-run, state-financed, nationalised industry. It never happened under a state-run, state-financed, nationalised industry. Privatisation has made possible massive investment in water in Britain. I hope that the House will have no difficulty in rejecting the Opposition motion and supporting the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I feel much sympathy for the Minister. It is bad enough having the Secretary of State and the Minister of State run away from the debate; to be left with such a threadbare speech must seem most unfair.
The Minister suggested that we were being unfair in criticising the Secretary of State for not being here, telling us that the right hon. Gentleman had important meetings

with local authorities in the north-west. I have been in the House long enough to know that if Ministers really want to be present in the House, they often press, through the usual channels, for the business to be rearranged so that they can attend. Some of us are sometimes a little unhappy at the prospect of voting at 10 o'clock on a Thursday night and we are often offered the explanation that the debate had to be held on a Thursday so that the Minister in question could reply. It is therefore a little off for the Minister to argue that the Secretary of State had important duties outside the House.
I regard it as an insult not to the Labour party but to Parliament that the Secretary of State was not prepared to come to the House to answer a debate on a matter for which he is responsible. I understand why the right hon. Gentleman does not want to be here: the industry's record is pretty bad, and I suspect that he was not one of the most enthusiastic supporters of water privatisation in the Tory party. Nevertheless, if the right hon. Gentleman has taken a little time to look at some of the problems facing the people in the north-west as a result of the failure of North West Water, I shall be grateful to him for it.
I shall concentrate on North West Water and its disgusting record since privatisation. Almost everything that it has done has borne out the worst fears that the Opposition expressed during the passage of the Water Bill 1988 through the House.
One of the first things that happened following privatisation was that the salary of the chairman, Dennis Groves, doubled, and he is now earning £110,000 a year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) revealed, he has also done very nicely out of the share option that he was able to take up. The Minister said that we were being unfair, and told us that perhaps Mr. Groves would not be selling his shares. I do not imagine that the shares were given to Mr. Groves so that he could stick the share certificates on his wall. I am sure that, at some point, he will be able to sell those shares.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): So that the public are aware of the position, I should explain that people were not given the shares, as the hon. Gentleman suggested: they had to buy them.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Just about.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: At market price.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister should restrict himself to considering the fact that, on the basis of the way in which Mr. Groves acquired the shares, if he had got rid of them at midday yesterday he would have made a profit of £74,000. Most of my constituents—especially those on low incomes who are finding it difficult to pay their water charges—will not consider that to be an appropriate use of the water company's money. Mr. Groves has potentially made a profit based on the profits of North West Water, which increased by 21 per cent. this year to £215 million. Those increased profits have meant that the value of the shares has also increased, and to that extent Mr. Groves has been instrumental in increasing the value of the shares that could potentially make him such a large profit.
The Minister said that the profits were modest. Those of my constituents on benefit will not regard them as modest, and they certainly do not regard a 14·7 per cent. increase in water charges as modest. Many of them are


receiving transitional relief in respect of their benefit and received no increase in income at all this year, yet they are expected to pay higher charges. The philosophy of North West Water appears to be to take increased payments from pensioners to give Mr. Groves and his shareholders increased profits.
Then there is the whole question of services. Last year, 14 sewage works in the north-west were making illegal discharges. In addition, 602 sewage pollution incidents occurred—a 16 per cent. increase. At many of the sewage works in the north-west discharges are at unsatisfactory levels and the smell coming from them is appalling.
What is North West Water doing in the streets? Last year, North West Water proudly said that it proposed to instal a new water supply pipe in the road in which my mother-in-law lives. It chose one of the worst of the cowboy private contractors to do the work because he put in the lowest tender. He managed to ruin the sewage system for several of the houses in the road, with the result that at least one of the houses had raw sewage underneath it. North West Water now says that it will not use that contractor again. But the water company's determination to try to get the lowest prices and so maximise profit, showing no concern for the effects on householders, appals my constituents.
In Hume road and Thompson road in my constituency, where work has recently been carried out, the quality of the temporary reinstatement carried out by the contractor for North West Water is appalling. Now, North West Water is trying to quibble with the Tameside authority, which has been undertaking the permanent reinstatement, saying that Tameside's charges are too high and that it wants to look for someone who will do the job more cheaply—no doubt at my constituents' expense.
We are told that North West Water has been making great investments, yet it has found £140 million to invest in non-water business. Given all that we are told about the problems facing the water industry in providing pure water and treating sewage, it beats me why the Government are encouraging the water companies to invest outside the industry. It would be far better if they invested any money that they can get in providing a better service for my constituents.
There is appalling pollution in the north-west—not least in three of the rivers that flow through my constituency—the Goyt, the Tame and the Mersey. If North West Water has any money to invest, it should be investing it in better treatment works so that the quality of that water, which passes right through the centre of Stockport, can be improved and made more attractive.
Let me refer to one major problem. Not content with dumping vast amounts of sewage in the Irish sea, contaminating a large number of rivers in the area and contaminating the beaches of the north-west, North West Water wants to vandalise an extremely attractive area—more than 700 acres in the area of Audenshaw. Until 1800, that land was farmland on the outskirts of the growing townships of Gorton and Reddish. With the demands from the city of Manchester for pure water, it seemed the ideal area in which to build reservoirs.
In the early 1800s, two reservoirs were constructed which are now just in Gorton. In the 1860s three more reservoirs were added nearer Denton and Audenshaw. The

land in between was earmarked for three further reservoirs, but before they could be built Manchester turned to the Lake District for its supply of water.
Therefore, there are in my constituency two early, small reservoirs and, some distance from them, three larger ones. The land in between has since been open space—some of it has been farmed and some used for two golf courses. To my constituents and to those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) it has been an open space which makes Debdale Park, which it surrounds, an area in which people can enjoy walking and seeing trees, and can enjoy the view of the water, and an area through which people can walk to listen to birds sing and watch wild flowers grow and where children can let off a bit of steam. They can get up to activities that would cause considerable upset if done in the tightly packed houses that surround the area. Children can let off steam without parents and neighbours saying, "Don't do that. Clear off. Go and play somewhere else."
The land has been an extremely valuable open space. It is not designated as a green belt area, because everyone assumed that it would not be used for anything other than recreation as it was part of the water undertakings. Now, instead of getting on with cleaning water and treating sewage, North West Water is setting up a property development company to try to establish a business park on the land. It claims that that will provide more than 6,000 car parking spaces and 6,000 new jobs.
I should be delighted if there were to be 6,000 new jobs in my constituency, but over the years I have heard far too many claims about the way in which developments will bring new jobs. When one checks those claims two or three years later, one finds that there are very few new jobs. Usually, there have been closures here, there and everywhere and in the end the net gain is almost non-existent. The evidence suggests that if North West Water were allowed to develop a business park on this attractive piece of open space, it would take office jobs out of the centre of Manchester, from other parts of Manchester and from Tameside, but would not bring new jobs to the area.
Even worse is the fact that in east Manchester there are vast areas from which industry has disappeared, leaving derelict sites. Some have been tidied up and are just waiting for industry to come along. If industrialists wanted to come to the area, there would be plenty of opportunities for them to take on those sites. However, North West Water does not want them to do that and is actively discouraging them. It wants to take one of the remaining most attractive pieces of countryside close to the centre of Manchester.
I am delighted that the Secretary of State stepped in and said that there must be a public inquiry. That will at least provide an opportunity for my constituents to put at some length their objections to the proposals. There is something wrong with the idea that some of the money being paid in water charges by my constituents is being used by North West Water to put forward at the pubic inquiry proposals that are totally unacceptable to my constituents. I wish that the Government and the director of the new water industry would direct North West Water to stop getting involved with such property speculation and get back to the basic task of providing pure water and the proper treatment of sewage.
There are six houses in the area in question. It is typical of the high-handed and dictatorial way in which North


West Water operates that it made an offer to the owners of those houses, pointing out that it would be extremely difficult for them to sell their houses while the public inquiry continued. With some difficulty, the owners decided to try to purchase other properties, but now North West Water has gone back on its promise and says that it will leave them in continuing uncertainty.
I hope that the message that goes out from this debate to the water companies is that they are not serving the interests of the British people and that they must put their house in order. They must provide pure water for everybody and find ways of treating sewage that do not pollute the rivers and seas. They must concentrate on those activities and not speculate, whether in television stations or in business parks. They should concentrate on providing the services that the water industry has traditionally provided.

Sir Giles Shaw: I begin by declaring my interest as a non-executive director of Yorkshire Water. I do not know whether that was the cue for the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to exit, but she has. Whether she was going to be here when I spoke or whether I was going to be absent when she spoke was a moot point. I am sorry that she has left, but what I say will be on the record.
I am delighted that the Opposition have selected the water industry for debate because, as all hon. Members know, it is rarely a matter for debate and it is such an important industry that it should be debated regularly. I make no bones about the fact that we are having a debate about this industry, especially at this time, and I am sorry that more hon. Members are not present to give their views about the achievements, the record and the problems of the industry. Undoubtedly, there are problems as well as achievements, but great progress has been made.
The state of the water industry is far removed from the appalling anxieties expressed by the Opposition in their motion today. To suggest that the House should note the level of profits made "with alarm" is extraordinary. I suppose that one should be grateful, because the Opposition have been pleading—not only in the speech of the hon. Member for Dewsbury, but in other contributions—for further investment, further improvement, fewer discharges below the threshold, and more accuracy in the measurement and quality of the water. That is a constant plea, and the water industry is more or less dedicated to the elimination of such problems at a cost of £28 billion over 10 years, but it still manages to achieve a profit which approaches an average of 10 per cent. or 11 per cent.
It is a matter not for alarm but for amazement that such an industry can fund those levels of investment and still achieve commercial returns. I should put parentheses around the word "commercial", however, because my colleagues will appreciate that in the commercial sector a return of 11 per cent. on the scale of capital employed in the water industry is very low. The commercial returns of most companies of similar size will be well above that and aiming towards 20 per cent. to ensure that they can replenish their assets in their own time.
The water industry is a fledgling industry insofar as private sector practice is concerned, and I understand the problems that that gives the Opposition, but to note that modest progress with alarm is tantamount to giving the lie

once and for all to Labour's understanding of the market. One can forget the views of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and those of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) about moving towards an understanding and a use of the market. If that is to be their economic management policy, it is absurdly put to naught in such a motion. We should leave the motion where it belongs—in the margins of history—and concentrate on some of the matters in hand.
There is agreement in the House that the industry has suffered a huge dearth of capital reinvestment for many years. I do not blame only municipal authorities for that. Municipal authorities built most of the major reservoir systems and much of the infrastructure of the water industry over many decades. For a long time, however, benign neglect has been the policy pursued by Governments of various parties and by local authorities of various parties because, as I mentioned to the House on a previous occasion, there are not many votes in spending huge sums of ratepayers' money on sewers.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman said, and I agreed when he said that the shortfall in capital investment had taken place over a long period and had been the responsibility of Governments of various parties. However, the hon. Gentleman was present, as I was, when the Minister pretended that it was all down to Governments of one party. Will the hon. Gentleman be generous enough to repeat in the presence of the Minister his statement that the shortfall occurred over a long period and under Governments of various parties as cheap political points should not be made out of that?

Sir Giles Shaw: There is nothing cheap about the water industry. I confess to the hon. Gentleman, if it helps his afternoon, that when for two happy years I was a Minister with responsibility for water in this Government, I dented the investment demands made by a number of water authorities. I admit that we operated within constraints known as the public sector borrowing requirement, which affected the rate of capital investment in the water industry. The policy of privatisation has been the one thing that has released the industry from the bondage of governmental restraint on investment. One can now contemplate a 10-year £28 billion investment in infrastructure—in sewers and sewerage systems, in purification and higher standards in water supply, and in new ring mains in the metropolis. I remember opening the first sewage works in the city of Newcastle in 1981. The dearth of modern facilities even in some of our great cities has been tantamount to a public scandal for long enough, and I admit that I played my part in that.
The Labour party is interested in having this debate, but it is concerned about peripheral things such as the level of profits, shareholding and dividends. It is time that the Labour party, and especially the hon. Member for Dewsbury—I am sorry that the hon. Lady is not in her place—recognised what the role of the system is. The hon. Lady does not understand that the shareholders, who on average get a distribution of about one third of the gross profit that the company makes, have put in their money to enable the industry to borrow cash and to fund the borrowing on the back of assets so that it can achieve a £28 billion improvement scheme over 10 years. One cannot


have the one without the other—one cannot have the ingredients in the pudding without having the pudding at the end.
The role of the shareholders must be reasonably rewarded. In the case of Yorkshire Water, and I am sorry to mention that company specifically, the shareholders—80 per cent. of whom, I am happy to say, are individual shareholders—live in the area of Yorkshire Water, so they are customers as well. The distribution from Yorkshire Water to the shareholders takes out of the company about £35 million or £40 million. The shareholder investment in the company is worth at least £750 million, so the shareholders get about 6 per cent. That is no Croesus-like dividend distribution, and nor should it be, because the risks of—dare I say it—liquidation of the company are relatively slight and investment in the company is long term and steady.

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman says that one third of the profits are distributed among the shareholders. That is about £45 million of the £140 million raised. Is it not right to say that interest on money borrowed must also come out of the profts, so is not the amount available for reinvestment substantially less than the hon. Gentleman implied?
If there were agreement between Conservative and Opposition Members that Government investment should be allowed, there would be no need for private money to be invested, and capital could be raised through European Community money and through monies available on the market without £45 million of profits being hived off. Will the hon. Gentleman address that issue?

Sir Giles Shaw: Interest charges would be dealt with before the distribution. The hon. Gentleman asked what would happen if the Government were benign towards the industry in terms of releasing cash. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government's capacity to do that expires every year on 31 March. That is the absurdity of relying on central Exchequer grants. Every five years—even more frequently if the Labour party had its way—there would be an election and a possible change of Government. The main reason why the change to privatisation is a matter not of profit or distribution but of allowing the business to develop is that it can be offered long-term financing under its own control so that it can do the long-term jobs that Government, with all the power that they have to raise adequate funds through taxation, have failed to deliver in the past. The failure of the past explains why there is now, probably for the first time since the 1920s, a real prospect of major investment in the water industry.
I referred to the number of shareholders and to their role in a regional company such as Yorkshire Water. However, I understand that the main factor in the huge investment programme is the need for the programme to be conducted efficiently and speedily. Hon. Members must recognise that, in aiming for higher standards, the existing distribution of pure water—or potable water—and the existing capacity to take away foul water should never be interrupted. It is a remarkable job to try to make renewals of infrastructure without threatening the supply and the existence of the service. Investment must be carefully calculated and cannot be easily speeded up because it is

impossible to change overnight from system A to system B. There must be gradual replacement of the various parts of the system until the totality can deliver the efficiency that can be provided by new methods of distributing water and of taking water away.
There has been anxiety about the fact that the industry has been involved in programmes which are not mainstream core activities, but diversification. Purely as a talking point, I wish to say a few words about diversification. The water industry is probably the biggest industry dealing in waste materials. It has the immense problem of taking away foul water, whether rain water through the guttering and street system or domestic foul water through the sewerage system. It has an immense capacity for dealing with waste products and waste resources. It has a technology and capacity to deal with that function probably far greater than that of many other industries which also have major waste product problems.
Under the new arrangements for cleaning up our rivers and seas, and they are admirable arrangements, it is required that the waste disposal system should use methods other than the standard treatment of discharging after primary or even secondary treatment.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I could understand it if the water industries were investigating ways of disposing of domestic and commercial waste, especially if they combined that with sewage sludge to make something which could be used as an alternative to peat. What baffles me completely is why they should be bidding for television franchises. What has that to do with waste?

Sir Giles Shaw: That is not for me to answer, but I have no doubt that someone will be able to answer the hon. Gentleman in due course.
Waste disposal raises a major new industrial opportunity, involving new systems and new technologies such as the high standard of incineration by which sewage sludge can now be disposed of. Those new opportunities immediately bring about the possibility of diversifying substantially—for instance, into waste disposal—so as to establish new technologies which can serve industries other than the water industry. I plead with hon. Members to understand that diversification from the core system into new technologies that could be used for purposes other than those for which they were originally designed is thoroughly sensible and admirable. There could well be other ways of diversifying, such as the modest experiments with wind farms in Yorkshire. As hon. Members know, we have high catchment areas, so there are prospects for windmill generation. Yorkshire Water is interested in that and is involved in a joint venture with Yorkshire Electricity. Its commercial competence may or may not be worth exploring, but from every point of view, including the environmental, it is essential that we look at new systems if they provide an opportunity for development.
The crucial point at issue in the debate is whether, after 18 months of privatisation, the industry has given a fair account of itself. My hon. Friend the Minister dealt admirably with that. The industry has come an immense way in a short time in being able to discharge its public obligations, which have been strengthened hugely over those 18 months.
The water industry is regulated in three dimensions. The first is the National Rivers Authority, which is the arterial system, dealing with discharges and through which


licences are granted. Secondly, the Office of Water Services—Ofwat—determines pricing factors. Thirdly, the EEC and the Government jointly provide the statutory framework through environmental directives, and pollution and bathing water standards. There is therefore no question of the industry being footloose and fancy-free to do as it likes. It has to do what it must do to discharge its public responsibilities. In my view, up to now it has discharged those responsibilities with amazing success. It has done so in a short period and while efficiently managing a huge investment programme. It has also had to reorganise its management structures and its skills to meet the demands that have been placed upon it. The water industry today has achieved high standards, and improved its delivery and quality.
However, much remains to be done. I am well aware of the concern about pricing policy and standing charges, upon which the hon. Member for Dewsbury spent a great deal of time. The hon. Lady also mentioned the metering experiments. The water industry is required to examine different methods of charging to find the most effective and the most acceptable to the consumer. I know that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) intensely dislikes the metering experiment in his area, but I am sure that he recognises that experimenting with charging systems is essential if we are to find the most equitable way of dealing with water charges, especially if—or when—rateable values disappear in the year 2000.

Mr. O'Brien: Although I accept that there should be investigations into future systems of water charging, such experiments should be voluntary. People should not have imposed upon them a system that they do not want. I am concerned about the evil of the compulsory metering system that operates in my constituency.

Sir Giles Shaw: The problem rests on the experiment being confined to an area that happens to be the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The option of metering has been freely available in most water authorities for some time, and the water companies continue to operate it. While I accept that the experiment has proved irksome to the hon. Gentleman's constituents, I defend the water companies' right to experiment in some way to ensure that we find the best, the most acceptable and the fairest way of charging for water.
On the issue of price, given the quality of the product that the modern water industry now delivers to millions of homes and the wide range of increased uses of water, surely it is not unreasonable or excessive for the price to be roughly 1 per cent. of domestic income. I accept that standing charges account for a high proportion of the domestic charge, but it stands to reason that as the infrastructure has been improved, standing charges have been under pressure. However, the regulations are clear—the price has to be examined, and the pricing formula must be approved.
I have said enough to demonstrate that, although the Opposition may wish to sound an alarmist or envious note which pays scant justice to the realities of the water industry, the fact is that in private ownership the water industry is safe, prosperous and progressive.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome this important and interesting debate. I follow the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) in saying that we all too rarely have the opportunity to stand back from this issue and to debate it. Pre-privatisation, our only opportunity to debate the water industry was the annual debate on the raising of charges, the external financing limit and all the rest. It was a matter of great controversy, and normally one of embarrassment to the Minister of the day and to everybody else in the House, including for a time the hon. Member for Pudsey, who spoke about his previous role as a Minister responsible for water.
The priorities of the water industry go far further than those that are stated in the motion or the amendment. My colleagues and I will vote with the Labour party—

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: As usual.

Mr. Hughes: No, not "as usual". Perhaps we do so on four out of five occasions, but not "as usual". As most of the ideas coming from a minority Government do not command majority public support, they are therefore opposed. That is why we shall vote with the Labour party, although our arguments will not be entirely the same.
The water industry's first priority should be the conservation of water—to minimise the waste of water. I understand that the average household consumes 136 litres of water per day. We waste an extraordinary and unjustifiable amount of water. Our nation has an enormous amount of rain—perhaps we have not had as much as we would have liked recently, although we have not had any sun either—yet we regularly have droughts. Therefore, the water industry's second priority should be security of supply. Its third priority should be the improvement of quality, and the fourth and final priority should be the minimum necessary cost to the consumer.
We waste about 25 per cent. of our water as it leaks out of the pipes while moving around the system. That is the unacceptable result of the failure to invest over many years. Furthermore, we do not have a national grid. I welcome Ministers' recent suggestions that they are positively looking at the idea of establishing a national water grid. My colleagues and I support that idea.
However, we are still often not responsible consumers. Those of us who were brought up, as I was for a time, in homes without mains water—my mother still lives in a house that has well water, but where the well runs dry for long periods—were brought up to be careful when using water. Many people, however, are often careless about water. I am not talking only about those who self-indulgently hose their vehicles or who water their lawns for extravagant periods, but about the fact that people often let water run to waste. For example, they have baths when they could have showers, which use far less water. Generally, we do not think about our duty to minimise the amount of water that we use. If we wasted less, other people could use some of that water and costs could be reduced.
The last factor that forms the background to the debate is that we have neglected the importance of having clean water. We have not paid a sufficiently high price. Perhaps the best example in Britain is the Mersey. The estuary has been sadly entitled the worst example of an estuarine blackspot in Britain. Fifteen years ago and thereafter


enormous amounts of money have been spent by the European Community and the British Government on cleaning up the Mersey.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, I shall not give way.
The practical consequence has been that our objective to convert the Mersey into a grade 2 "fair" river by 1995 has been downgraded because all that we can do now is prevent further deterioration. The Mersey receives more untreated sewage, trade effluent and surface run-off water than any other river. We have committed a crime on much of the water in and around our country. The Mersey is the worst example, but there are others. The ecological capacity of the Mersey and other rivers like it has been exhausted by a sort of environmental grievous bodily harm.
The message of that legacy of pollution is that the precautionary principle of prevention being better than cure is often essential in environmental terms. Unless we prevent water pollution, it is too expensive properly to clear it up.
I have outlined the background to the debate. Water was mostly in the public sector for about 100 years, although many areas had statutory water companies. Some of my predecessors contributed to putting water into the public sector. But we never seemed to have enough money for the water industry. I do not think that Governments would ever have put enough money into it. Other claims on the public purse appeared to have been such that there would never have been enough money for investment.
Perhaps I may be permitted the indulgence—it is a luxury afforded to Liberal Democrats that we can stand aside fairly dispassionately and comment on the record of the other parties—of commenting on the past 15 years. The Labour Government cut pollution expenditure by 50 per cent.. They cut capital expenditure by a third in real terms. The all-party Select Committee on the Environment made it clear that from the mid-1970s to the early 1980s there was a steady drop in investment by the water authorities in sewage treatment and disposal. The Labour Government also failed to implement section 2 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.
During the first part of the Conservative party's period in office—

Mr. Irvine Patnick: Tell us what the Liberal party would do.

Mr. Hughes: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what we would do. Investment was not significant during the first part of the Conservatives' period in office, although I accept that it then increased. However, it was not nearly as much as it has been since privatisation. The reality borne out by the recent history of investment in the water industry is that it has never been possible for Governments to deliver the investment they needed to deliver when water was in the public sector.
When the proposal to privatise the water industry came before the House I and my hon. Friends, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) who has the merit of being both a Liberal and a Welshman, argued vehemently against privatisation. We

opposed it as a matter of principle. As a matter of principle, then and now, we were unhappy with the content of the legislation because we foresaw how it would allow profits to be made and diversification to take place that would be against the interests of the consumer. Yes, it was necessary to find extra money from elsewhere, but no, it was not necessary to set up a structure that would allow very large profits, large and unjustified salaries, which have been evidenced—unjustifiably high—and sudden increases in cost and expenditure on matters which have little, if anything, to do with the water industry.
So what has happened? Even if we had not seen the picture before, we are indebted to The Sunday Times this week for the "Insight" report which gave a summary of the sort of things that have happened. I shall summarise the three main points that the article made: last year the number of sewage pollution incidents did not fall, but increased by 20 per cent; the newly created water companies underspent on their environmental clean-up programme while they spent twice as much on diversifying into other businesses; and the National Rivers Authority cannot prosecute in all cases because, provided that the number of certain breaches is small, it is prohibited from prosecuting no matter how serious the breach.
We have had a patchy year and a half. We have seen large salary increases. The chairmen of the water companies are paid salaries of the order of £80,000, £100,000 and £120,000. The water companies have made profits of about 14 per cent. Investment has increased—that is good—but prices have increased substantially, in many cases entirely unjustifiably. Across England and Wales the figures that I have—they appear to be accurate—show that there was a 67·8 per cent. increase in domestic water bills between 1987–88 and 1991–92. That is 36·8 per cent. above the retail prices index for the same period.
The average water bill is now about £155, but in some places people pay more for their domestic water than for all the local government services put together. In Wales that is certainly the case. I see that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) agrees. I understand that the average poll tax in Wales was £230 before reduction. The water rates figure was higher. A friend who lives in Westminster told me the other day that the water rate for his flat was more than the pre-reduction poll tax. That seems ludicrous.
We have paid a lot and some people have gained a lot. Some companies have diversified a lot. At the same time the United Kingdom has sought relaxation of some of the standards set by the European Community. We have sought and obtained 719 relaxations of drinking water quality standards. We know that about a quarter of our bathing beaches do not conform to the European Community standard, and have not won the blue flag award.
We are still failing badly in our sewage sludge and other outfall requirements. We are not yet good environmentalists. Much of our water is still filthy and I am afraid that many of the standards are still low.
As the hon. Member for Pudsey said, we have three tiers of authorities controlling water. The inspectorate deals with drinking water. The National Rivers Authority deals with inland waterways. The Office of Water Services deals with regulation of the finances of the industry.
What should be the way forward? Colleagues rightly ask that question. My view is—

Mr. Patnick: Tell us about some of the advantages.

Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall not take long. I shall give my view clearly. My view is that we should be helpfully guided by the warnings of the Director General of Water Services. He has given several helpful warnings to the industry already during his short time in office. I sought to raise this matter during the Minister's speech, but he did not allow me to intervene. The director general warned today that companies should not seek to charge people for improvements that have not been carried out and are not likely to be carried out. He also warned that there is still a high and unjustifiable number of debt disconnections. He has also warned, as we heard before, that excessive profits appear to be either made or anticipated. Lastly, he has warned that to concentrate on diversification—for example, into hotel purchase, as the Welsh water authority is doing—rather than on clearing up coastal estuaries, such as the one around St. David's which was cited in The Sunday Times, is to have the wrong set of priorities. He warned that customers would rightfully complain.
We believe—I say this provisionally, because our conference will decide the matter in September—that it would be appropriate to return to the mechanism of a statutory water company, which would have a corporate structure but would be regulated much more clearly on behalf of the public. It is, of course, proper and necessary to allow additional investment: I have made that abundantly clear. But the present structure clearly is not tilted sufficiently in the interests of the consumer. It is tilted too much in the interests of those who have ended up being the shareholders, the bulk of whom are not domestic consumers. Most of them are the companies, corporate entities and large commercial organisations, not the woman or man in the street who relies on the water supply day by day.
How should we charge for water? Imposing meters—I appreciate that Labour also objects to the idea—seems to be the wrong way forward. But it is important that people should know how much they use and that there should be disincentives to use. That should be an important conservation principle. But the charge should also take account of ability to pay. A high standing charge for low use unjustifiably penalises those in lower income brackets. We should also make sure that the charge is not related to the old-fashioned and increasingly outdated linkage with the rates, which of course may not be appropriate in the future.

Sir Alan Glyn: Is the hon. Gentleman's party in favour of water meters, by which the charge would exactly reflect the amount used?

Mr. Hughes: My party will debate this subject in Bournemouth in September, when we shall take a decision on this and other linked issues. My personal view is that water meters are a good idea, provided that the cost of installation is not borne by the consumer. They should be provided by the water company. Otherwise customers like the pensioner with a low income would have to pay.
Nor should there be a standing charge. One should pay for what one uses, meaning that the low user pays a small sum. That would create an incentive to minimise rather than maximise usage. My party may disagree with me in

September and we may decide that water meters are entirely unacceptable. Perhaps we shall want a water income tax or some other method.
The lesson of the last couple of years has been that investment has been the number one priority of the water industry. Now, its priorities should be to look after the needs of the consumer. The dogma that said "We must privatise because that is the remedy for all evils" has proved to be inadequate, as is always the case. But to pretend that the public purse, without any other money, will always be able to invest, for example, in a ring main for London, in the improvement of our beaches and in clearing up our sewage, is an argument which also does not hold water.
We are dealing with a sensitive and politically controversial issue. It would be better to proceed by seeking agreement than confrontation. We must not continue the present structure by which many people cream off much of the profit. The public are not happy with the existing water system and with the water industry as it is at present organised. The system must be changed, but next time it must be done with public consent.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I was surprised to discover as I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that there was much common ground between us on this issue. That was particularly the case when he began by referring to the conflicting claims that are made on the water industry today compared with the demands of the past. Having served for seven or eight years on the Select Committee on the Environment, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have examined in depth the issues involved in the water industry. We look into its problems at regular intervals and we accept that the industry's problems deserve serious treatment.
I welcomed the hon. Gentleman's speech because it was the first on the Opposition Benches which even began to air some of the issues that must be addressed, rather than simply ducking issues. Indeed, I thought that Labour Members had a brass neck to select this subject for debate. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said, their record in office was absolutely deplorable. Not only did Labour Members cut investment significantly then, but they are now proposing to renationalise the water industry, and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who speaks on water issues for the Labour party, did not have the decency earlier to give me a straight answer to my question about how that would be funded. We must know how Labour Members would fund investment in the water industry if they would also take a tough line on prices.
It is obvious that Labour gives the water industry a low priority in its plans. That reflects what happened when Labour was last in office. In that connection, it is deplorable that Labour Members should go in for so much bashing of Britain in terms of water when we have so much of which to be proud. About 95 per cent. of our rivers meet the fair or good standard which is laid down, which is more than can be said of many other European countries. About 96 per cent. of our homes are on main sewerage.
That contrasts with the record of many of our European partners, who are ready to lecture us but who do not do much about their problems. In Italy, for example,


the city of Milan discharges all its sewage untreated into the river Po and out into the sea, yet no action is being taken by the European Community on that, I suspect because the EC commissioner for the environment is an Italian. Such a deplorable record leads one to be extremely suspicious of European claims.
If the lessons of the past are the consequences of under-investment, it was clearly not under-investment by chance. Water and sewerage came low down the political pecking order in those days. One can understand why Governments were tempted, when considering their capital programmes each year, to ask which were the most important areas—health, education, defence and so on—with the result that the water industry came low down on the list. That was true of Labour and Conservative Governments. As has been pointed out, there were not in those days many votes in water and sewerage. I suspect that that is changing.
Much has been said about pollution. Only now, with the existence of the National Rivers Authority—the roles of poacher and gamekeeper having been separated—do people seriously think it worth reporting incidents of pollution. I come into that category because, as a constituency MP, I used to think it frustrating to take up a pollution incident concerning, say, the river Gade, and write to the Thames water authority about it, only to discover that the pollution was coming from that authority's own sewage pumping station. The authority was supposed to be responsible for checking the level of pollution in the water and, if necessary, remedying the situation.
I welcome the fact that a major part of the Water Act 1989 involved the creation of the NRA and the separation of the two roles of poacher and gamekeeper. Indeed, I would go further. I have always made it clear that I see that move as a stage towards the creation of an environmental protection agency. I hope that the Minister will consider, in that context, the merging of the drinking water inspectorate into the NRA and eventually into an environmental protection agency.
The NRA is doing an excellent job but, especially as we consider the problems ahead, its role seems too complicated. It is having to deal not only with questions of pollution but with matters concerning leisure and the environment. Rationalisation could take place between the NRA and the British Waterways Board so that, for example, all the leisure functions were enjoyed by the same body. I accept that in its first year or two the NRA should not have a shake-up of functions, but in the long term we should proceed in the way I have described and attain a specialist approach to the various topics.
Much has been made of The Sunday Times article. I read in it the need for more powers to be given to the NRA, and the Minister has responded positively to the issue. If the NRA feels that way, it should say that to hon. Members who are interested in the subject and suggest where it thinks its powers are failing and should be extended. I for one would be sympathetic to a re-examination of its powers, if I thought that necessary.
As to underspending, when one considers the huge size of the capital programme, it is hardly surprising that there should be slippage. Anyone who has had to deal with this country's planning system knows how difficult it is to get

projects on stream, on time. I refer not just to obtaining planning permission, but to all the consultations that are involved.
During the Select Committee's consideration of the bathing waters directive, it had an opportunity to examine in detail why there was no water treatment plant on the Fylde coast. It was clear that the rows between different levels of local authority and the water company all contributed to delaying a project that was extremely important to that area's tourist industry.
We must be honest and acknowledge that price and consumer attitudes to the cost of water are problems that we must confront. At least the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey acknowledged those difficulties and suggested how they might be solved. Far too many people think that water is free, conveniently forgetting that it must be collected and transported, that water pipes must be maintained, and that sewage has to be cleansed and disposed of. That is a very expensive exercise. If we and the rest of Europe hold to the polluter pays principle, the polluter in the case of water and sewage is the domestic consumer of clean water and creator of sewage.
The amount that we pay for our .water is small in comparison with other day-to-day commodities and utilities, and even in comparison with our expenditure on TV and on booze. It is also small in comparison with other countries. Our charges are half those made in Germany and less than in almost every other European country.
Some of the legislation coming out of Brussels also presents a problem. Although much of it is welcome, some of it has no proper scientific basis. A great deal of expenditure is being incurred on schemes that would not be justified if the regulations were properly framed. I will cite one example in respect of sewage. The bathing waters directive provides that a water shall fail if there is any instance of salmonella. One third of all seagulls carry salmonella, so every bathing beach on this country and throughout Europe would fail that directive if proper monitoring were undertaken—and it is not, in many parts of Europe. That is the kind of thing that must be changed if European directives are to be taken seriously.
Nitrate levels are another area of concern. The Select Committee remarked that, on the basis of the scientific evidence available to it, existing permissible levels are far too low. If we are to spend large sums of money improving British water standards, there are many more important areas. Heavy metals, for example, present a far more serious problem than nitrates to most people.
The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) referred to standing charges in his intervention, and I have considerable sympathy with the argument made by him and by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. Although it is true that the infrastructure must be in place whether or not one uses water, the same can be said of Marks and Spencer, which incurs overheads regardless of whether one shops at that company's stores. The match between the standing charge and the unit cost is currently out of kilter, and it should be closely examined.
It will be clear from my remarks and from earlier speeches that the majority of the public acknowledge that a huge investment is being made in the water industry. That has only been possible because of privatisation, and it would not have been undertaken if it had been left to the state to find the resources. Because of that, the very least that the House is owed today is a decent, straightforward


answer from the Opposition—but the House will have been struck by the deafening silence that greeted my questions to the hon. Member for Dewsbury.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: We oppose the privatisation of water and the creation of private monopolies, for which there can be no economic justification. I point out to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) that we shared the Government's view, in their creation of the National Rivers Authority, that the industry needed a separate organisation. However, we would like an NRA that has much wider powers. We resent the amnesty that the Government granted to the water companies, which allows them to carry on polluting—and when fines are imposed, they are far too low. They need to be 10 times higher to have any deterrent effect.
There has been a historic lack of investment in the water industry, from the 1950s right through to the 1980s. The answer was to devote more public money to cleaning up the environment, not to privatising the industry. There is no evidence yet of any environmental improvement following privatisation. As has been said, over the past year, the number of pollution incidents has increased by 20 per cent. The number in the case of Welsh Water is 717, which is an increase of 25 per cent. There is no evidence either of any improvement in respect of beaches or drinking water quality.
However, there has been a dramatic increase in water charges, and that is brought to our attention almost weekly in our constituencies and through the media. There has been a 30 per cent. increase over the past two years, with Welsh Water showing an increase of 16·4 per cent. last year alone.
With the introduction of the poll tax, many water companies are moving towards something like a water poll tax, which has brought a dramatic increase in standing charges, which now account for 60 per cent. of Welsh Water's income. Its standing charges have increased by between 30 and 60 per cent.—which is most unfair to the poor. A different charging system should be devised. The old system, which was linked to rateable values, was generally accepted as fair—and when we get into government and introduce our fair rates policy, we shall want water companies to follow suit and to levy charges in proportion to property values and to people's ability to pay.
Many householders have difficulty paying their water rates. If an individual falls more than two months into arrears, the water companies automatically issue a summons, which incurs legal costs that are often greater than the amount outstanding. I have cases in my own constituency of single-parent families who cannot keep up payments. In one instance, an elderly person who had never been in debt received a summons as a result of an error. When I wrote to Welsh Water, I received a standard reply pointing out that it issued 45,000 summonses last year. Its attitude is nothing short of callous.
What people resent most of all is the enormous profits that the water companies make, and the way that they diversify. Last year, Welsh Water made £128 million on a turnover of just £293 million, so 40 per cent. of its turnover was profit. The salaries of top executives rose by 30 per cent. and Welsh Water has bought 10 per cent. of the

shares in South Wales Electricity, which is simply a speculative venture. It is now buying five hotels in Wales, including the largest hotel in Carmarthen, at a cost of £10 million.
The public feel that the water companies are misusing the freedom that they have been given by the Government. The regulator is weak and should examine what is happening in terms of diversification. In turn, the Select Committee should investigate the water companies' profits and see whether they are being used for environmental improvements. If they were, people might be willing to pay the extra water charges, but they are being misused. With the water industry in private hands, such dangers will always exist. The only answer in the long term is to return the industry to public control and public accountability.

Mr. Richard Alexander: I should be interested to know whether returning the industry to public control, as suggested by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), is Labour party policy. The history of the Labour party's opposition to privatisation has always been scaremongering and exaggerating the awfulness of what will happen, leaving those who are less able to accept problems unable to see what will happen. Nevertheless, people have learnt that water privatisation is not as the Labour party described it in previous debates. The Labour party did the same in debates on the national health service and British Telecom and is now attempting to blackguard the water authorities. The tragedy is that Labour Members are still attempting to rubbish the water authorities and what they are trying to do, despite the fact that privatisation continues. They no longer come out with the same old exaggerations, saying that footpaths will be closed and areas of outstanding beauty will become yuppie villages or ghettos, but the distortions remain and we have heard some of them today.
Our ideological opponents miss the point. Privatised water authorities are in place to produce water that is as clean as possible, combined with the increasing number of duties imposed on them by Europe to make water acceptable and drinkable. Although returns to shareholders are important, they are not the main object of the exercise. Indeed, because of statutory intervention, they cannot be the most important aspect. In any event, I doubt whether any hon. Member would not rather have our clean water than that of any other European country that preaches at us about improving water standards. One of the many great pleasures in life is to come back from two weeks in, say, Spain and to be able to turn on the tap and find clean, cool, natural drinking water. I wonder whether one can do that in any other country in the world with the same absolute certainty that the water will be pleasant to drink.
This country sometimes does itself a disservice in debates such as this when Opposition Members claim that the current position is unacceptable. Instead of proclaiming the nastiness of our water, we should proclaim its virtues. Instead of complaining that too much profit is being made, we should explain that the investment in the industry is for even greater water quality. We should be able to tell the nation and the world that we bear comparison with any other water-producing country.
Reference has been made to the report of the Select Committee on the Environment. I served on that


Committee and helped to produce that report. I remember being briefed by the water authorities, which were tearing their hair out over the inability to invest as they thought best to improve water quality in their areas. I remember their frustration in dealing with Treasury requirements to produce certain returns on their capital, even though they were being starved of capital under a Labour Government and, indeed, under a Conservative Government until privatisation. It was an unsatisfactory time for them all. Public ownership meant that management was limited to damage limitation and political pressure.
Today, water managers are motivated by responsibility to their shareholders and the public at large and by leadership in their industry. Above all, they are now impelled by accountability. They are no longer restricted by Treasury economics, damage limitation and hostility to initiatives.
It is fashionable for the Opposition to campaign on the basis that everything is awful and that they could do much better. However, they are the Government-in-waiting and believe that they will win the next general election. If they are to convince the electorate that they are not just political opportunists, desperate to take office at any cost, they must come clean with the electorate and the House and answer the questions put to them, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones). How do they propose to carry out their promises? Will it be through increased charges and taxation or, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen said, will it be by renationalising the water authorities? Labour Members have said nothing precise in this debate. We have had a long tirade of carping, but nothing positive. At this stage, shortly after privatisation, we should leave the water industry alone and let the professionals manage it. They are doing a good job as a result of privatisation and Labour's vindictiveness against the private sector cannot deny that.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: The debate focuses attention on a problem which lies at the root of privatisation of this essential, basic industry, which is so crucial to our industrial and commercial life. The clash will become increasingly evident as a result of privatisation, due to the need to make profits for shareholders and at the same time to serve the interests of the nation and consumers. The legislation clearly provided for charges to increase by inflation plus a K factor. That was different from all the other privatisations, which provided for charges increasing by inflation minus certain amounts. Therefore, we know that prices will continue to rise by more than inflation.
We must be extremely cautious when considering the installation of meters. I know that the industry is consulting on that matter. One must treat even that consultation with caution, not because I accuse the industry of doing it falsely but because few people will fully understand the implications of metering. One must accept that, however the charge for the capital cost of installing meters is met, it will ultimately affect the charge to be met by the industry. The reading of the meters will also add a revenue charge.
Unlike electricity and gas, the commodity that goes through the system is not the expensive part. Rather, the

distribution and treatment—before and after—in the sewage treatment works form the major cost. Therefore, the relative amount that the consumer uses is less influential than in some other industries. We must also recognise that metering may penalise families with young children who use a lot of water for washing clothes. The same applies to people with manual jobs—who will need to do a lot of washing and will need more baths than other workers—and to the elderly, the sick and the disabled.
Much has been said about investment. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State described the mid-1970s as the peak period for investment. The issue has been debated for years in the Select Committee and elsewhere, and I have never denied that the decline in investment began under Labour—but it continued and accelerated under a Conservative Government. What the Conservatives fail to point out is that—despite their having been in office for 10 years at the time of privatisation, and despite all the economic miracles for which they claim credit—they have never regained the level of investment that existed in the mid-1970s.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) shakes his head, but he was a member of the Select Committee when I was, and the graph shows clearly that I am right. The key issue was never the ownership of the industry—investment was always the problem. We could have solved that problem if the Government had chosen to remove the industry from such restraints as the public sector borrowing requirement and the external financing limit. We want to achieve the best possible drinking water standards. We also want to avoid the cheapest ways of dealing with sewage, which in the long run will lead to higher costs as they become subject to more and more limitations. That will make it more difficult for us to clear up our beaches.
A secret memorandum from North West Water, dated 30 May, has been—appropriately enough—leaked. It states:
Following the latest cut in major capital refurbishment expenditure, I have contacted your works managers and asked them to revise their programmes for the year".
That shows that the industry is already experiencing difficulties in dealing with investment problems and tackling the tasks imposed on it, while at the same time meeting the limits on charge increases forced on it by current legislation and making a profit for the shareholders. We believe that privatisation is failing to satisfy the requirements of the public.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I think that the whole House will agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who said that no one wanted water to be rationed as a result of price considerations. We all agree that water bills must take into account the impact on, in particular, pensioners and families with low incomes. It does not follow from that, however, that we should emulate the Labour party and criticise the conduct of the water companies. Where does Labour imagine that the money for investment will come from? That question has never been answered.
In an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), I mentioned the pre-tax profits of the water body in my area. It is extraordinary for any company—I refer here to Severn Trent—to plan to spend twice its current profits on investment. I understand that


Severn Trent is not only spending £400 million on investment this year, but planning to invest some £4 billion. That would never have happened in the public sector; it is time that we faced up to that.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury avoided my question and promptly suggested that the company was investing outside the water industry. That is perfectly true—it has just bought BIFFA, a major waste disposal company. And why not? The water companies are very much involved in the waste disposal business, and I think that BIFFA fits Severn Trent's plans very well. What the hon. Lady does not want to admit—I have checked this—is that the money for that investment did not come from funds that should rightly have gone to the industry. The company did not use what we called the "green dowry" at the time of denationalisation. It raised the money by using its normal banking facilities and through the issue of bonds. It is diversifying without using funds which ought to be invested in the industry as a whole.
We shall have to check with Hansard tomorrow, but I have the impression—from either her tone or her words—that the hon. Member for Dewsbury believed that the NRA was somehow or other no longer in the public sector. Surely the hon. Lady will be the first to admit that it has remained in the public sector. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) will not think that I am treating him poorly when I suggest that history will probably record that he made the most important decision of his political career when he decided that the denationalisation of the water industry should involve the separation of the commercial side—now in the private sector—from the environmental side. He rightly believed that that element, along with the NRA, should stay in the public sector, which is what has happened. As has already been said, we have separated the gamekeeper from the poacher.
If there was a mistake in our denationalisation legislation—I hate the word "privatisation"—

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The industry was not nationalised.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: There they go again—they love it.
I was going to say that I felt uncomfortable about one aspect of our legislation—the size of domestic bills for highway drainage. I appreciate that the cost of highway drainage had to be paid by someone and it was left to the plcs to include it in their charges. Surely, however, it should be paid either through central taxation or through funding for the local authorities or the Department of Transport. I may be guessing, but I suspect that bills in the Severn Trent area would be 8 to 10 per cent. lower if highway drainage costs were not charged to individual households.

Mr. William O'Brien: The title that Labour has selected for today's debate—"Priorities of the Water Industry"—shows how badly such a debate is needed.
The Yorkshire water authority introduced compulsory water metering in part of my constituency. No joy is involved in compelling people to install water meters. The authority promised that those who used a lot of water because of medical conditions—those who suffered from incontinence or had to use dialysis machines, for instance —would be given special consideration. It reneged on that

promise: such people will have to pay like everyone else. That is just one of the injustices that water metering has brought about.
What happens if the water supply is interrupted or if the mains are flushed and some dirty water flows through the system? We questioned Yorkshire Water about how that will be judged and it said that it is subject to negotiation. Imagine what will happen to people who cannot negotiate with professionals when they try to obtain a reduction in their water charges because of dirty water in the system.
What will happen to people who doubt the meter because, for example, they can see it turning when the system and the taps are turned off? If they question the water authority, it will say "We will check the meter, but if it is correct you will have to pay between £20 and £40." Such people will say, "I cannot afford to have it checked." That is what is facing people who are being compelled to have water meters.
I object not to people having water meters—if someone wants a meter, let him have it—but to a water authority saying that everyone must have them, without the authority first considering the implications.
Conservative Members wanted to know what the Labour party's policy is. We oppose compulsory water metering, which is one of the issues on which we shall fight the next election. Conservative Members can be assured that I shall campaign vigorously on the issue because of my constituency experience.

Mr. Win Griffiths: It has been an instructive debate. I was not surprised that Conservative Members tended either to ignore the past 10 years or to try to rewrite its history. On the fundamental issue of who spent what on water, the record is plain: the average for the Labour years was £1,254 million but for the Tory years up to privatisation it was £922 million. The graph went down between 1974 and 1979 and continued to go down until 1986, when it began to increase but still did not reach the spending of the previous Labour Government. Those straightforward facts are obtained not from us but from an independent source. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Who?"] The Library produced the figures; Conservative Members can obtain them from there.
Much has been said about the investment programmes of the water companies, but most of that investment was made in response to European Community directives, which for a decade the Government tried to avoid complying with. They complied only when they were threatened with proceedings in the European Court of Justice.
There is slippage in the programmes on water and sewage treatment and 48 per cent. slippage this year in complying with European Community sewage treatment directives. Although they predict a better performance, how can we hope that they will meet their targets when they have begun so badly?

Mr. Roger Gale: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I wish that he would stop running down the United Kingdom compared with Europe. Since denationalisation, Southern Water has spent millions of pounds in my constituency on new sewage systems and on bringing bathing and drinking


water up to standard, whereas Brussels, the heart of the European Community, still pours raw sewage into its livers.

Mr. Griffiths: It seems that the hon. Gentleman would like to take charge of Europe, but I have no desire to do so. I have not compared our rates of compliance with another European country. I am considering only the state of play in Britain, which is not good enough given the incredible amounts of money that consumers are having to pay and the profits that are being stuffed into the pockets of shareholders, particularly of directors who have preferential share option schemes, from which they make thousands of pounds. That is the issue, not what is happening in Brussels or anywhere else.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) attacked the record of the Italians, but the European Commission threatened them with action and as a result the River Po is being cleaned up. The hon. Gentleman's comments were true when the Select Committee considered the matter, but they are not true today.
We have created a financial leviathan with a monopoly that allows water companies to ride roughshod over consumers. Is not it a coincidence that in this time of economic recession the companies that are returning massive profits and are buoyant are the privatised companies, such as British Gas, British Telecom and the water industries, whose captive customers have been left unprotected by the Government?
Privatisation cost British taxpayers £3·3 billion. The Government did not find it difficult to provide money for the water industry, but they did not want to do so. They wanted to privatise it and threw money at it, the purpose of which had nothing to do with improving the lot of the customer or the quality of water. That is why headlines appear in our newspapers saying,
River devastated by farm pollution",
and
River poisoned, thousands of fish killed",
and
Mersey polluters breach limit 859 times in five years",
and
River Bourne restocked after serious pollution
and
Swan lakes so polluted that film can be developed from its water".
Such headlines appear every week in our newspapers.
Low fines are levied on polluters. Shell justly suffered a massive fine of £1 million, but there seems to be no consistency in the application of fines.
For six years of the Government's term of office, fewer of our traditional beaches met the EC beach water directive than did those in the land-locked state of Luxembourg. In Luxembourg, 38 beaches had to comply, whereas in Britain the figure was 27. Again, because the European Community threatened to take Britain to the European Court of Justice, the Government finally recognised in 1986 that traditional bathing beaches meant about 400 beaches. The Government claim to have achieved 77 per cent. compliance five years after they should have complied with the directives, which shows the effrontery with which they are prepared to behave towards the British public.
There are more beaches in the blue flag scheme. The committee that validated those beaches said that it was

shocked at the pollution, sewage and readily identifiable detritus from our sewage works that could be found on beaches that were put forward as being most eligible for blue flag status.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to take account of the fact that no correct monitoring takes place in many European countries to judge whether beaches should be passed. Britain has a sophisticated monitoring system. I believe that the hon. Gentleman represents a coastal constituency. Is he saying that people should not go on holiday to his area but should go to the Cotentin peninsula in France, which is knee deep in sewage but has nothing done about it?

Mr. Griffiths: Of course I would recommend that people should come to my constituency. I would not recommend that they risk going in the water in some places. Rest Bay in my constituency was put forward for blue flag status because basically it was a good-looking beach. The committee found that it was full of seaborne pollution and heavy fuel oil. A beach at Dunraven Bay was found to be polluted with fuel oil. After 12 years of Tory rule and nearly two years of privatisation, we still suffer from those problems.
I am sorry that there is not a little more time to consider the Government's devastating, disgusting and disgraceful record on pollution. To protect the privatised companies, many derogations were sought in England and Wales. Well over half the population of Wales drink water that has been allowed derogation from European Community standards, to avoid prosecution of the private water companies. I wish that there was more time to go into specific details.
I tried to find out from the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office exactly how many people were supplied with drinking water that did not comply with European Community standards. Neither Department could give me any figures. That is not surprising, as they would have to admit that more than half the population of Wales were drinking such water.
Much play has been made of the role of the National Rivers Authority as a public body. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) did not talk about it being a private body. When it was created, the Government proudly described it as the strongest environmental protection agency in Europe. Why, therefore, do not the Government ensure that grant-in-aid is at the required level? In the NRA's five-year plan to 1994, it had a £105 million shortfall in grant-in-aid from the Government. In 1991, it asked for £119 million to ensure that it could carry out its functions properly, although it admitted that it would still have difficulty with that amount. The Government chose to give £79 million —a £40 million shortfall. During the year, they stumped up another £26 million because so many bad pollution incidents were hitting the press that they had to do something. The NRA was still left with a £14 million shortfall. The Government have been full of ringing rhetoric about doing something about water quality but have been wretched about resourcing that work. It is a familiar tale of the way in which the Government have approached these matters.
The public are well aware that the Government have failed them. That is one of the reasons why the Government will continue to trail in opinion polls for the


rest of their term. Labour will reinstitute public control. The water industry has never been nationalised. It was municipal and then regional and we intend to make it regional again. A Labour Government will first introduce a much sterner regulatory programme. We will make sure that the polluter really pays. Although we will increase the fines, charges and levies on pollution, we will reduce levies on companies that reduce their pollution. We will use that money in the water industry to promote research and development and alternative clean technologies. That will happen not a moment too soon.
We will ensure that there is freedom of information so that people know about the quality of the water which they drink and in which they swim. We will have an environmental protection agency, which was so roundly supported by the Select Committee on the Environment. We will ensure that our water policies are driven by environmental and social priorities. We will truly serve the customers, not the whims of the City or the demands of shareholders for fat profits and dividends. The public are looking forward to that day.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): One would think that the Labour party was approaching this issue with great seriousness, but at the height of the debate four Labour Back Benchers were present and the number has now risen to seven. That is the measure of the importance that the Labour party attaches to the water industry.
Over the past decade there has been a major advance in public awareness of environmental matters and nowhere has that been more obvious than in the public concern about water quality. The Government understand that concern and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) said, no Government have done more than this Government to ensure that water quality is maintained and improved.
We have denationalised the industry to improve the quality of service to customers, as they expect from a private sector company. We have set up the National Rivers Authority. We have established the drinking water inspectorate. We have set up the office of the Director General of Water Services. All three are there to ensure a better service and a better quality of environment. They will ensure that the companies in the water and sewerage industry meet the stringent standards which we have set. We have established standards for drinking water quality that go beyond those required by the European Commission. We have decided that dumping of sewage sludge and industrial waste at sea should stop. We have anticipated the urban waste water directive by deciding that all substantial discharges of sewage should be treated, and we have implemented the agreements reached in the North sea conference and applied them to all seas around Britain.
That is an impressive record. All we heard from the Opposition was a succession of whines. If one looks at Labour's record between 1974 and 1979, one realises that it is not in a position to lecture anyone. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was opposed to employee share ownership in the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey pointed out in a lucid explanation the importance of getting a return on assets and the public

obligations that the Government have set on the industry through the NRA, Ofwat—the Office of Water Services —and EC and Government statutory regulations.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made a speech with which I partly agreed. It was right to point out the wastage that occurs, but the first thing that came to mind on listening to the second part of his speech was that the Liberal Democrats have no policies. The hon. Gentleman was challenged by my hon. Friends to give his party's policies. He said, "We will have a conference in September and I shall be able to tell you afterwards." He went on to give us the Simon Hughes manifesto, which appeared to be about a water tax or about water meters. The problem is that the Liberal Democrats do not have enough hands for the different policies that they put forward, depending on the audience that they are addressing. It is a matter of saying, "On the one hand, this; on the other hand, that." The Liberal Democrats have not given any clear view of their policies. That is not surprising, because in two out of the last three general elections the party did not even mention the water industry. It is rather late in the day for the Liberal Democrats to lecture us on water matters.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned an article in The Sunday Times. Before quoting journalists writing in national newspapers the hon. Gentleman should check sources and facts. For example, the article said that Southern Water was responsible for 487 incidents last year. I have checked with the National Rivers Authority and found that that is simply not true. I understand that 233 of the 487 incidents, almost half, were in respect of private work such as septic tanks and that only 186, a little more than one third of the total, were in respect of the water company. However, the crude figures do not tell us whether the incidents were in any way significant. It was dangerous for the hon. Gentleman to quote that article without first checking the facts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) was right to speak about international comparisons. It is deplorable that the Labour party sells Britain short and does not look realistically at the facts. In its document entitled "An Earthly Chance", chapter 5, headed "Water", states:
We can no longer take the quality of drinking water for granted. Many of Britain's rivers remain severely polluted. This is just one of the reasons why Britain has been labelled the dirty man of Europe.
It is the Opposition who have attached that label to Britain, and it is totally untrue. Anybody who examines the quality of drinking water in France, smells the River Rhine in Germany or looks at the pollution of Mediterranean beaches will see that our water industry has a better environmental protection record than those in other countries. It is about time that Labour stopped selling Britain short on this issue.
Some 95 per cent. of the United Kingdom's rivers are of good or fair quality, a record which is not bettered anywhere in the European Community. Some 96 per cent. of Britain's homes are connected to sewers, and that is about the highest percentage in Europe. By 1990, 88 per cent. of the sewage treatment works had already met the long-term performance measures specified in the discharge consents. That compares with 77 per cent. in 1986. The Opposition are prepared to tell untruths about Britain in order to gain some sort of short-term political advantage.


I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West for drawing this matter to the attention of the House.
My hon. Friend also drew attention to prices. Labour is presently campaigning on the issue of water prices and it is therefore important to get the facts straight. The average price per day per household in the Severn Trent Water area is 38p. The average price across Britain for water per day per household is 43p. Even in Wales, where the price is higher, it is only 55p a day per household. Two pints of milk cost more than the price of the water consumed by each household in Britain in a day. It is half the price of German water, and in France, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands water costs more than it does in Britain. The British people should know that we get a good bargain for the price that we pay for water and the services that we receive.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) was absent for most of the debate and when he turned up he made a series of allegations about Welsh Water. The hon. Gentleman and I share a local paper to which the hon. Member wrote two weeks ago, making a series of allegations about Welsh Water. Last week that paper published a three-column letter from the head of public relations in that authority. One by one, the letter knocked down the allegations made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen. It contained phrases such as:
Dr. Williams was wholly inaccurate
and,
Dr. Williams is completely wrong
and,
This is totally untrue".
The hon. Gentleman's allegations were wrong then and they are wrong today.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen did not say anything about the good works carried out using the profits made by Welsh Water. For example, we heard little about the fact that last year for every £100 that it collected from customers Welsh Water spent £108 in providing services and investing to improve the quality of services. The hon. Gentleman did not speak about the fact that every day for the next nine years Welsh Water will invest £500,000 in the Welsh water industry. The Opposition do not advance those facts because they do not support the argument that they want to put across.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) made snide innuendos about senior managers in the water industry. She spoke about their perks and shares and tried to give people the impression that managers received free shares. She did not say that the shares were purchased by those managers at market price and that by spending their own money they have shown their commitment to the industry. Labour dislikes employee share options and does not like employees to spend their own money buying a stake in their companies. I welcome such participation and we shall certainly make sure that people are aware of Labour's attitude on share ownership.
The barefaced cheek on water matters by the India rubber men and women in the parliamentary Labour party has reached a new level of contortion. The strategy of the new Kinnock model army is to face both ways at the same time. In one breath they call for greater priority for the environment and higher spending and in the next they call for lower prices. Most of them have enough political savvy

to advance those competing propositions on separate occasions to different audiences. Sometimes their co-ordination is as good as their clothing, but on other occasions it is not.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), who leads for the Opposition on Welsh matters, was reported in the South Wales Echo of 13 June as calling on Welsh Water to
invest more and charge less".
He went on to say that the water industry was a priority for a return to the public sector. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), because in her guise as a moderate after many years as a left-winger the hon. Lady told my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman):
although we think that, in the long term, the water industry belongs in the public sector, it is not one of the policies that we expect to implement soon after coming to power"—[Official Report, 15 May 1991; Vol. 191, c. 314.]
However, Opposition Members in the House and in the media express a different view. In "Meet the Challenge, Make the Change" the party claims that there will be no compensation other than paying a fair market price for any equity or other rights that a Labour Government would wish to acquire. On "On the Record" on BBC television on 17 September 1989 the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said that a Labour Government would take action to regulate the water industry which would reduce the profitability of the privatised companies and would therefore be likely to depress the share price. Investors should take note of that.
Labour wants to depress the industry and the share price and then grab back the shares at an unfair price, having said in its election literature that it would not do that. That shows the dishonesty of Labour over the whole issue. I suspect that the hon. Member for Derby, South might have some trouble with the motion in the City. Month after month, the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends have eaten their way around the banks, discount houses and stockbrokers peddling the line that Labour has reformed. They say "Yes, we understand the need for profits. Of course we recognise the role of the shareholder and, really, you should not take any notice of Labour conference decisions." However, in the motion we find "alarm" about the "level of profits" and allegations that the shareholders' interests are the greater priority. No wonder no member of the shadow Treasury team has signed the motion.
This is the old-style Labour party back in action. It is the party which prefers state losses to private sector profit, and which cut investment in the 1970s. It is the Labour party of the vested interests of the public sector unions and the party which still has clause 4 in its constitution. It is the party which still believes in nationalised industries. Why should we take lectures from the Labour party on the water industry? How green are the credentials of a party whose control of one of our major cities has left it rotting with refuse? Let us remember that this Government have invested heavily in the water industry because we are concerned about the environment. We believe that this is the way forward. The record of the Opposition on the water industry is appalling; their motion is appalling, and it deserves to be defeated. I call on the House to vote for the Government amendment.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 297.

Division No. 176]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Foulkes, George


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Fraser, John


Allen, Graham
Fyfe, Maria


Alton, David
Galbraith, Sam


Anderson, Donald
Galloway, George


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
George, Bruce


Ashton, Joe
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Gordon, Mildred


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Gould, Bryan


Barron, Kevin
Graham, Thomas


Battle, John
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Beckett, Margaret
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Beith, A. J.
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bell, Stuart
Hain, Peter


Bellotti, David
Harman, Ms Harriet


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Blair, Tony
Henderson, Doug


Blunkett, David
Hinchliffe, David


Boateng, Paul
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Boyes, Roland
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bradley, Keith
Home Robertson, John


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hood, Jimmy


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Howells, Geraint


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hoyle, Doug


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Callaghan, Jim
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Janner, Greville


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Johnston, Sir Russell


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Carr, Michael
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cartwright, John
Kennedy, Charles


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Lambie, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lamond, James


Cohen, Harry
Leighton, Ron


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lewis, Terry


Corbyn, Jeremy
Litherland, Robert


Cousins, Jim
Livingstone, Ken


Cox, Tom
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Crowther, Stan
Loyden, Eddie


Cryer, Bob
McAllion, John


Cummings, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Macdonald, Calum A.


Dalyell, Tam
McFall, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McKelvey, William


Dewar, Donald
McLeish, Henry


Dixon, Don
McMaster, Gordon


Dobson, Frank
Madden, Max


Doran, Frank
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Eadie, Alexander
Martlew, Eric


Eastham, Ken
Maxton, John


Edwards, Huw
Meacher, Michael


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Meale, Alan


Fatchett, Derek
Michael, Alun


Fearn, Ronald
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Healey)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fisher, Mark
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Flynn, Paul
Morgan, Rhodri


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morley, Elliot


Foster, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)





Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Short, Clare


Mudd, David
Skinner, Dennis


Mullin, Chris
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Murphy, Paul
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E.)


Nellist, Dave
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Snape, Peter


O'Brien, William
Soley, Clive


O'Neill, Martin
Spearing, Nigel


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Steinberg, Gerry


Patchett, Terry
Strang, Gavin


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pike, Peter L.
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Prescott, John
Vaz, Keith


Primarolo, Dawn
Wallace, James


Quin, Ms Joyce
Walley, Joan


Radice, Giles
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Randall, Stuart
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Reid, Dr John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Richardson, Jo
Wigley, Dafydd


Robertson, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Robinson, Geoffrey
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Rogers, Allan
Wilson, Brian


Rooker, Jeff
Winnick, David


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rowlands, Ted
Worthington, Tony


Ruddock, Joan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Salmond, Alex



Sedgemore, Brian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Eric Illsley.


Shore, Rt Hon Peter



NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Butterfill, John


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Allason, Rupert
Carrington, Matthew


Amess, David
Carttiss, Michael


Amos, Alan
Cash, William


Arbuthnot, James
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Chapman, Sydney


Ashby, David
Chope, Christopher


Aspinwall, Jack
Churchill, Mr


Atkins, Robert
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)


Atkinson, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Baldry, Tony
Colvin, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Conway, Derek


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bendall, Vivian
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Cormack, Patrick


Bevan, David Gilroy
Couchman, James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cran, James


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Body, Sir Richard
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Day, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Devlin, Tim


Bottomley, Peter
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dover, Den


Bowis, John
Dunn, Bob


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Durant, Sir Anthony


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Dykes, Hugh


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Brazier, Julian
Evennett, David


Bright, Graham
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Buck, Sir Antony
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Burns, Simon
Fishburn, John Dudley


Burt, Alistair
Fookes, Dame Janet


Butler, Chris
Forman, Nigel






Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Fox, Sir Marcus
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Franks, Cecil
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


French, Douglas
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fry, Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gardiner, Sir George
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gill, Christopher
Madel, David


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Malins, Humfrey


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Mans, Keith


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maples, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Marland, Paul


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marlow, Tony


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorst, John
Mates, Michael


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Maude, Hon Francis


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gregory, Conal
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Ground, Patrick
Miller, Sir Hal


Grylls, Michael
Mills, lain


Hague, William
Miscampbell, Norman


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, Sir David


Hannam, John
Moate, Roger


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Monro, Sir Hector


Harris, David
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Haselhurst, Alan
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hawkins, Christopher
Moss, Malcolm


Hayes, Jerry
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Needham, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nelson, Anthony


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv1 NE)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholls, Patrick


Hill, James
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Norris, Steve


Holt, Richard
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hordern, Sir Peter
Paice, James


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Pawsey, James


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Portillo, Michael


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Price, Sir David


Hunter, Andrew
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Irvine, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Irving, Sir Charles
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jackson, Robert
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Janman, Tim
Roe, Mrs Marion


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rost, Peter


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rowe, Andrew


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sackville, Hon Tom


Key, Robert
Sayeed, Jonathan


Kilfedder, James
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shelton, Sir William


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knowles, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knox, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sims, Roger


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Latham, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lee, John (Pendle)
Speed, Keith


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Speller, Tony


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lightbown, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Squire, Robin


Lord, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor





Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Steen, Anthony
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Stern, Michael
Walden, George


Stevens, Lewis
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Ward, John


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stokes, Sir John
Watts, John


Sumberg, David
Wells, Bowen


Summerson, Hugo
Wheeler, Sir John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wiggin, Jerry


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wilkinson, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilshire, David


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Winterton, Nicholas


Thorne, Neil
Wolfson, Mark


Thornton, Malcolm
Wood, Timothy


Thurnham, Peter
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Yeo, Tim


Tracey, Richard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tredinnick, David



Trotter, Neville
Tellers for the Noes:


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Viggers, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 208.

Division No. 177]
[7.15 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alexander, Richard
Carrington, Matthew


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carttiss, Michael


Allason, Rupert
Cash, William


Amess, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Amos, Alan
Chapman, Sydney


Arbuthnot, James
Churchill, Mr


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Ashby, David
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Aspinwall, Jack
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Atkins, Robert
Colvin, Michael


Atkinson, David
Conway, Derek


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baldry, Tony
Cope, Rt Hon John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Couchman, James


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cran, James


Bellingham, Henry
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bendall, Vivian
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Day, Stephen


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Devlin, Tim


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dickens, Geoffrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Peter
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dunn, Bob


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dykes, Hugh


Bowis, John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Evennett, David


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brazier, Julian
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bright, Graham
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Buck, Sir Antony
Forman, Nigel


Burns, Simon
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Burt, Alistair
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Butler, Chris
Fox, Sir Marcus


Butterfill, John
Franks, Cecil


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
French, Douglas






Fry, Peter
Maples, John


Gale, Roger
Marland, Paul


Gardiner, Sir George
Marlow, Tony


Gill, Christopher
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mates, Michael


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Maude, Hon Francis


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Goodlad, Alastair
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gorst, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Miller, Sir Hal


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mills, lain


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Miscampbell, Norman


Gregory, Conal
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mitchell, Sir David


Ground, Patrick
Moate, Roger


Grylls, Michael
Monro, Sir Hector


Hague, William
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hannam, John
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Harris, David
Needham, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Hawkins, Christopher
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hayes, Jerry
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Nicholls, Patrick


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv1 NE)
Norris, Steve


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Paice, James


Hill, James
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Pawsey, James


Holt, Richard
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hordern, Sir Peter
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Portillo, Michael


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Price, Sir David


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Riddick, Graham


Hunter, Andrew
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Irvine, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Irving, Sir Charles
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jack, Michael
Rost, Peter


Janman, Tim
Rowe, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Key, Robert
Shelton, Sir William


Kilfedder, James
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sims, Roger


Knapman, Roger
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knowles, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Knox, David
Speed, Keith


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Speller, Tony


Latham, Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Squire, Robin


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Steen, Anthony


Lord, Michael
Stern, Michael


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Stevens, Lewis


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stokes, Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sumberg, David


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Summerson, Hugo


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Madel, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy (S'end E)


Malins, Humfrey
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mans, Keith
Temple-Morris, Peter





Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Watts, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wells, Bowen


Thorne, Neil
Wheeler, Sir John


Thornton, Malcolm
Whitney, Ray


Thurnham, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Wiggin, Jerry


Tracey, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Tredinnick, David
Wilshire, David


Trotter, Neville
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Twinn, Dr Ian
Winterton, Nicholas


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wood, Timothy


Viggers, Peter
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Yeo, Tim


Walden, George



Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walters, Sir Dennis
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Ward, John
Mr. Irvine Patrick.


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Eadie, Alexander


Allen, Graham
Eastham, Ken


Alton, David
Edwards, Huw


Anderson, Donald
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fatchett, Derek


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fearn, Ronald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Ashton, Joe
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fisher, Mark


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Flynn, Paul


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Barron, Kevin
Foster, Derek


Battle, John
Foulkes, George


Beckett, Margaret
Fraser, John


Beith, A. J.
Fyfe, Maria


Bell, Stuart
Galbraith, Sam


Bellotti, David
Galloway, George


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Blair, Tony
George, Bruce


Blunkett, David
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Boateng, Paul
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boyes, Roland
Gordon, Mildred


Bradley, Keith
Gould, Bryan


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Graham, Thomas


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Buckley, George J.
Hain, Peter


Caborn, Richard
Harman, Ms Harriet


Callaghan, Jim
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Henderson, Doug


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hinchliffe, David


Canavan, Dennis
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Carr, Michael
Home Robertson, John


Cartwright, John
Hood, Jimmy


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Howells, Geraint


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hoyle, Doug


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cousins, Jim
Janner, Greville


Cox, Tom
Johnston, Sir Russell


Crowther, Stan
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cummings, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kennedy, Charles


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lambie, David


Dewar, Donald
Lamond, James


Dixon, Don
Leighton, Ron


Dobson, Frank
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Doran, Frank
Lewis, Terry


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Litherland, Robert


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Livingstone, Ken






Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Richardson, Jo


Loyden, Eddie
Robertson, George


McAllion, John
Robinson, Geoffrey


McAvoy, Thomas
Rogers, Allan


Macdonald, Calum A.
Rooker, Jeff


McFall, John
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


McKelvey, William
Rowlands, Ted


McLeish, Henry
Ruddock, Joan


McMaster, Gordon
Salmond, Alex


Madden, Max
Sedgemore, Brian


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sheerman, Barry


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Short, Clare


Martlew, Eric
Skinner, Dennis


Maxton, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Meacher, Michael
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Meale, Alan
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Michael, Alun
Snape, Peter


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Soley, Clive


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Spearing, Nigel


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Morgan, Rhodri
Steinberg, Gerry


Morley, Elliot
Strang, Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Mudd, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mullin, Chris
Vaz, Keith


Murphy, Paul
Wallace, James


Nellist, Dave
Walley, Joan


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


O'Brien, William
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


O'Neill, Martin
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wigley, Dafydd


Patchett, Terry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Pendry, Tom
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Pike, Peter L.
Wilson, Brian


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Winnick, David


Prescott, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Primarolo, Dawn
Worthington, Tony


Quin, Ms Joyce
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Radice, Giles



Randall, Stuart
Tellers for the Noes:


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Reid, Dr John
Mr. Eric Illsley.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the success which the water industry has achieved in the first full year after privatisation in substantially expanding investment to improve the environment and standards of service to customers; endorses the firm and fair system of regulation that has been established to protect customers; and looks forward to the benefits from this massive investment programme and improved efficiency in the years to come.

Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

Clause 26

FOR PROTECTION OF A.B. PORTS

Amendments made: In page 12, line 8, to leave out "fail" and insert "fails".

In page 13, line 51, to leave out "consider" and insert "considers".—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Clause 27

FOR PROTECTION OF RIVERS AUTHORITY

Amendment made: In page 17, line 15, to leave out "or". —[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When reading the preamble to the Bill, I noticed that in page 1, line 16, the word "abstact" was used. Clearly the word "abstract" must have been intended, but there was a mistake. I went to the Table Office and said, "Surely we should be able to amend the Bill, because it is wrong."
I looked in "Erskine May", which said that there were certain circumstances in which, even on Third Reading, amendments could be made. You will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the famous occasion a few months ago when a private Member introduced a Bill that the Government had taken off the shelf and given to him, and its title was wrong. On Third Reading the title of the Bill had to be changed, because it conveyed the opposite of what was intended. One Friday we had to speak at some length to sort out the matter.
Even on Third Reading, in very unusual circumstances, it is possible to amend a Bill. So I went to the Table Office and said that a word in the Bill was wrong. An argument was put to me by certain people connected with the Table Office—I do not want to name names; that would be unfair. Those people have a job to do. The last thing that we want to do here is to slag off people who work for a living.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Unlike Lloyd's.

Mr. Skinner: Lloyd's is a different ball game, but we are not talking about Lloyd's here. We are talking about a spelling mistake.
The people in the Table Office said that in certain circumstances an amendment could be made, but that the amendment had to be insignificant. I said that we had an insignificant amendment here. The mistake that I mentioned is insignificant, so it must qualify.
However, there is another argument in "Erskine May", and I suppose that you will have to balance one against the other, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The other argument is that some mistakes are so insignificant that they can be corrected at another time. I do not know into which category the mistake falls. It is a mistake, for sure, and it is marginally insignificant, but does it fall into the category that cannot be debated here and now, or can it be settled somewhere else?
The other mistake occurs at line 13, on the same page, which refers to
a gas turbine generating station".
Yet part II of the Bill refers to 12 works—six for each station. Therefore, the reference to "a … station" is clearly wrong; the provision should refer to "stations".

Mr. Michael Brown: I agree.

Mr. Skinner: Oh. We are beginning to get the support of the hon. Member for Johannesburg, are we? He is also on my side on Lloyd's; we are trying to clear up that mess, too, but that is another story.
The second mistake is more than significant; it is fundamental. The Bill refers to "a station" when it means "six stations". When I discovered that, I thought to myself, "I've got a case here." I asked the people concerned, "What do you reckon to this one? This is big." They said, "Of course it is."
Here again, we are talking about different interpretations in "Erskine May". One section of "Erskine May" says that, if a mistake is too significant, it cannot be dealt with on Third Reading. Another section says that, if a mistake is not too big, it can be changed.
I think that we need a ruling from Mr. Speaker. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, could see Mr. Speaker, but, in any case, the matter needs clearing up. On the one hand, we have a tiny spelling mistake of little significance. On the other, we have a big mistake, which alters the whole framework of the Bill. I do not think that the correction of both mistakes can be ruled out. We would settle for one —for the big one or for the little one—but the "Erskine May" rule cannot apply in both cases.
I should like to know, Sir, whether you will suspend the sitting, have a word with Mr. Speaker and get the matter sorted out. We could then deal with it another day so that people can get off. It is Royal Ascot week, after all, and I believe that the Gold Cup is to be run tomorrow. Other hon. Members are attending a fancy dinner party tonight because they have been in Parliament for 21 years. I am not going; I am working my tripes out here—or, at least, some would say that. I think that the matter should be settled, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have had a word with the Clerk, and I should like to know the score.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): On the hon. Gentleman's first point, if he is saying—as I think he is —that there is an obvious misprint or misspelling, it can be corrected without an amendment having been tabled. I am not wholly clear what the hon. Gentleman's second point was because he did not table an amendment in connection with it. It would be very much better, in any case, if we proceeded with the Third Reading debate. If we did so, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), who is to speak on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, might well be able to clarify the matter for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman and the House.

Mr. Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You say that you are not quite sure what my second point was, although you are quite clear in your mind about my first point concerning the spelling mistake. Line 13 of the Bill refers to
a gas turbine generating station".

Mr. Alexander Eadie: Take it slowly.

Mr. Skinner: Right. The important word in the phrase is "a". When you look at page 4, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you

will see that part II of the Bill, entitled "Works", enumerates six separate works for each company. My argument is simple. The phrase
a gas turbine generating station
implies that two stations will be built—one per company. In fact, we are talking about six apiece. The Bill should be amended so that line 13 refers to "stations" if the provision is to comply with the rest of the Bill.
From our point of view, however, it would be better if another amendment removing the words "gas turbine" were tabled, thus leaving a reference only to "stations". Then the Bill would—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) doing over there?"] What is happening?
Have you grasped my second point now, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Should the Bill refer to "a station" or "stations" in order to comply with the provisions in part II dealing with works, in which six separate stations are enumerated for each company—12 in all?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman had read the whole paragraph and not just part of it, he would realise that the clauses in question deal with detailed works and not whole stations. That is the answer to his point. As I said, it would be very much better if we got on with the Third Reading debate. If we do that, further clarification may well be given. I call Mr. Knapman.

Mr. Roger Knapman: rose—

Mr. Jimmy Hood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you to defend hon. Members' rights? During the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), an hon. Member went to the place beneath the Gallery where the promoters, who are not allowed to speak in this place, are sitting to seek advice from them. Can you, Sir, give us some guidance as to whether that will be allowed during the remainder of our proceedings tonight? Will you protect hon. Members by ensuring that those sitting under the Gallery take no part in our proceedings from that position?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not responsible for what goes on outside the Chamber. It is not unknown—indeed, it is perfectly proper—for hon. Members to consult people outside if they wish to do so.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), Mr. Deputy Speaker. If my understanding of the private Bill procedure is correct, the first thing that must have happened to the Bill in the private Bill Committee following Second Reading in February this year was for the Committee to agree the preamble. That is what "Erskine May" says. The preamble must have been agreed before the Committee considered any of the Bill's clauses.
My hon. Friend has raised a fundamental point. I cannot see how anyone can infer from the grammar in the preamble that the Bill permits the building of more than two gas turbine power stations—one each for National Power and PowerGen. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) will keep quiet, he will hear what I have to say. In effect, later clauses in the Bill give planning permission for the building of six power stations on the site. We can assume that four of them are


not designated as gas power stations or any other type of power station. All we know is that there is an outflow of water from the estuary for the further four power stations.
It is on that basis that the point of order has been raised. Before the Bill proceeds, we ought to establish whether the preamble is right and whether it has been agreed in Committee, as it tends to mislead the reader with regard to later clauses.

Mr. Eadie: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I congratulate you on the recent decision taken in respect of the birthday honours list. I think that I speak on behalf of the whole House.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) raised his point of order, you said that you did not quite grasp the significance of his second point. I put it to you, Sir, that I do not grasp the significance of your ruling. The provisions of the Bill are clear. We know that grammar is singular and grammar is plural. The reference in the Bill is in the singular rather than in the plural.
Will you advise the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on how you reached your decision, given that it is clear from the rest of the Bill that we are dealing not with the singular but with the plural? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said, that decision is crucial to the Bill. If the ruling was that the grammar and the definition in the Bill were wrong, Opposition Members would seek, as my hon. Friend said, to discuss the question whether we should be talking about gas-fired power stations or power stations. I hope that you, Sir, will be seized of the importance of the matter. I ask you again to clarify how you reached your decision that the Bill was in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments at the beginning of his remarks. The preamble to the Bill has been proved, so we cannot go back on that. It is clear to me that the points that have been made are relevant to the Third Reading. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), who is seeking to catch my eye, may be able to explain them.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I hesitate to rise on a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but earlier this afternoon Mr. Speaker refused even to hear a point of order from me, whereas you have listened patiently to a whole series of utterly fraudulent and bogus points of order. A clear reading of the preamble to the Bill makes it apparent that generating stations are referred to. The preamble states:
whereas to meet requirements for the supply of electricity each of the two companies"—
National Power and PowerGen—
proposes to construct on the lands vested in that company a gas turbine generating station".
It is manifest that the education of Opposition Members in the English language is so lacking that they have failed to grasp the basics.

Mr. Michael Brown: rose—

Mr. Harry Ewing: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall take further points of order, but it is becoming clear that we are already dealing with Third Reading. It would be much better if the words "point of order" were omitted and if speeches were made on Third Reading.

Mr. Ewing: A moment ago you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, made a very important comment. You said that the preamble to the Bill had been dealt with earlier; but, with respect, it was not this Bill. This Bill has been to another place and has been returned. Therefore, this Bill is not the Bill that was dealt with earlier. This is the Bill that has been reprinted. I accept that there are spelling errors in it—that can happen with any Bill—but there is also an error of substance. This is not the Bill that we discussed at an earlier stage. Having listened to the earlier debates, without participating, I can say that this is not the Bill that we debated earlier. With respect, I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to reconsider the statement that you have just made. This is a different Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I assure the House that we have gone through all the correct procedures on the Bill. We have now reached Third Reading, and it would be much better if we proceeded with that debate.

Mr. Michael Brown: It might help you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to know that, if the Bill becomes an Act, it will not give PowerGen or National Power permission to build one, two, three, four, six, 66 or 166 power stations. The only authority which is competent to give planning permission for one, two or more—or less—power stations is not the House of Commons but Glanford borough council. The Bill deals only with pipes out of the power stations, so that the number of power stations is irrelevant.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. His comments enable me to remind the House that we are now on Third Reading, and it is appropriate to discuss only what is in the Bill.

Mr. Roger Knapman: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I second the good wishes of my colleagues and congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on featuring so prominently in the birthday honours list.
My hon. Friends the Members for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) and for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) have said much of what I need to say because they covered a substantial part of the Bill. However, I was surprised at the amateurish way in which a further delay was sought tonight. After all, where on earth was the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) during the revival motion and the debate on Second Reading? If the Labour party has such strong views on the subject, and if it is so deeply in the pockets of the National Union of Mineworkers, why did not one member of the Labour party attend the Committee stage?

Mr. Bob Cryer: While the hon. Gentleman is talking about pockets, will he declare to the House that the building firm with which he is involved will not be applying for any of the works mentioned in the Bill? As he is a member of Lloyd's, will he also make it clear that he is not involved in any representations to the Government about tax concessions for himself?

Mr. Knapman: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking such a close interest in what I do. I am happy to reassure him on all those issues. I should have thought that anyone who was a builder or a member of Lloyd's deserved a little sympathy at the moment.
Tonight I thought that we had seen the nadir—that means the lowest point—of delays. However, I examined the record a little more closely and read the contribution of the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) on the revival motion on 14 January. Why was it said that the Bill should not proceed at that time? I remind the House, because the hon. Gentleman's comments merit further publicity. He said:
I recall telling the House in a previous debate that, when I met the Norwegian commanders in NATO, I asked them what would happen if a conflict broke out in the North sea and what consequences it would have for the oil and gas installations. They told me that the installations could not be defended. As a strategic aspect is now involved, because we may soon be involved in a war in the Gulf, the situation has changed since the House last addressed the subject.
That appears to have been the reason for delaying the Bill at that stage. It is a good job that we did not take any notice of the hon. Gentleman's strictures, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) said so eloquently. He said:
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He is saying that with the Gulf crisis, or a Gulf war, we shall not have enough gas in the short to medium term and that we shall have to import it from the Soviet Union through a non-existent pipeline".—[Official Report, 14 January 1991; Vol. 183, c. 675–76.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I know that he is still on his preamble, but I hope that he will come quickly to the contents of the Bill. Only discussion of its contents is in order on Third Reading.

Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Where should we be without your guidance? I shall not detain the House for very long because there is a star-studded cast of Conservatives Members who wish to speak tonight, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, North-East—a member of the Committee—who is an absolute certainty for Secretary of State one of these days.

Mr. Michael Brown: Only after my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens).

Mr. Knapman: My colleagues will agree that on Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) showed such a grasp of biocides and all matters environmental that the House was rapt in attention for quite a while.

Mr. Eadie: rose—

Mr. Knapman: I shall give way in a moment. Other hon. Friends will contribute, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes who has represented his constitutency in a way that is in marked contrast with those representing the two adjoining constituencies, both of whom are Labour Members and neither of whom has attended the debates on the revival motion or on Second Reading. They are also not here tonight, and why is that? It is because they know that the coal lobby is here and that their views count for nothing.

Mr. Hood: May I give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to correct an error that he seemed to make in answer to a question that I put to him on Second Reading?

I asked him to name the petitioner against the Bill and the reason for the objection being withdrawn. The hon. Gentleman said:
I understand that the Coalfield Communities Campaign objected on the general principle of how the proposals would affect coalfield communities, but it withdrew the objection. It realised, even if the hon. Gentleman does not, that the Bill has nothing to do with coal."—[Official Report, 27 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 1034.]
Will the hon. Gentleman admit that that has nothing to do with why the petition was withdrawn and that he made an error, to say the least?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have some difficulty in dealing with that point and remaining in order.

Mr. Knapman: I agree entirely, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am very tempted because I have such a detailed knowledge of all the subjects that the hon. Gentleman seeks to raise. However, I appreciate that if I sought to answer his points, I should be out of order, so I must return precisely to the nature of the Bill.

Mr. Eadie: In the preamble to his speech, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the star-studded cast that he has in front of him and behind him. I have never described people with a vested interest in that manner. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that his hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) had revealed knowledge of the detail of the Bill. I wish that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) had read the Second Reading debate because it emerged that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth had a good speech writer. If the hon. Member for Stroud reads Hansard, he will realise that comments were made about the speech writer. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth had the grace to reply to those comments with good humour. Will the hon. Member for Stroud take that on board when he tries to outline his case to the House?

Mr. Knapman: I was merely saying that if I had the choice between my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth with a script writer and the hon. Member for Midlothian without one, I would side with my hon. Friend every time.
The Bill can be covered in six salient points. I propose to deal with them briefly because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. National Power and PowerGen are already in the process of constructing gas turbine generating stations at Killingholme. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes will, I am sure, detail for us later how many jobs are now affected by the delay in the private Bill procedure. Almost 1,000 people are on the site now. That is why it makes me a trifle angry to think that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is unable, yet again, to attend the debate.
The Bill is related only to drawing water from the River Humber for cooling purposes. Whatever the type of fuel that will be burnt at Killingholme, there would still be a requirement for cooling water works in the River Humber. The Bill, as I have made clear on more than one occasion, is required for the construction of the necessary cooling water works and to overcome the prohibition in the Humber Conservancy Act 1905. We have gone into that matter in great detail before.
Contrary to the protestations of certain Labour Members, the Bill does not seek to circumvent planning permission procedures. The power station developments already have consent. They are now being built and planning permission has been given after full local consultations. Those consultations have included all those involved locally. Many Opposition Members do not have local interests—and they have taken great trouble to say that I do not.
Among the authorities that have been consulted is Glanford borough council, which one would hope knew best what was right for its area. In its letter to the Central Electricity Generating Board, which is now deceased, it wrote:
Further to my letter dated 16 November 1989 I am now able to inform you that on 7 December the Borough Council's Planning Committee resolved that Glanford wishes to raise no objections to the proposals contained in the Bill.
There we are. Glanford borough council wants the development very much. There are many others.

Mr. Hood: I do not want to put the hon. Gentleman off his speech, but may I ask whether he will cover the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on Second Reading about the fact that the Bill does not mention lagoons? Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether lagoons will be used in the operation?

Mr. Knapman: Lagoons are not mentioned in the Bill, so I do not wish to trespass, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the question has been asked again. I did not answer the point before because I did not understand what the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) was saying on Second Reading.
If the Bill is defeated tonight, lagoons could be built, subject to planning permission, but that would be worse from the environmental and financial points of view. Does the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) want even private companies—and I know how much the Labour party detests them—to have additional expense so that they have to charge their customers more? I know that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has a high opinion of his party leader, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). He said carefully that Labour had to learn to run capitalism better than the Conservatives could. On that basis, I say to the hon. Member for Clydesdale that I have described the position on lagoons.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: That is what you said last time.

Mr. Knapman: Yes, we had the same exchange on the previous occasion. However, it was not only Glanford borough council.

Mr. Michael Brown: I underline strongly what my hon. Friend has said about Glanford borough council. I confirm to the House that the picture is exactly as he has described. I have the good fortune to have as my next-door neighbour Councillor Malcolm Parks. As my hon. Friend knows, he has just become this year's mayor of Glanford and the mayoral car is parked outside my driveway as the mayor and mayoress get in and out of it. Councillor Parks and I have discussed the matter at great length. I told him that my hon. Friend would draw to the attention of the

House the fact that Glanford was very supportive in so far as it gave planning permission. I give the mayor's blessing as well as my own to what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Knapman: I am sure that Councillor Parks and all the councillors on Glanford borough council will watch tonight's proceedings in the mother of Parliaments with unusual interest. They will wonder why Conservative Members have to bring benefits closer to the people of the north-east in the teeth of the fiercest opposition from the Labour party, despite the absence of Labour Members who should be concerned for their constituents' welfare.
It is not only Glanford council that supports the development. Humberside county council also supports the proposal. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has a lot to say and he is currently discussing matters with his colleagues. On Second Reading, we reminded the hon. Gentleman that Humberside county council was Labour controlled and we wondered why the Labour party was at variance with the Labour controlled county council. The hon. Gentleman gave an undertaking to consult the council to see whether things could be ironed out. Has that happened? The hon. Members who cried "Object" to the Bill are not here tonight. Not only local Members, but hon. Members who objected are not here tonight. Will the hon. Member for Rother Valley tell us whether his view has been cleared with Humberside county council which, despite being Labour controlled, has no objection to these matters? [HON. MEMBERS: "This is boring."] Yes, it is boring. I apologised before for the fact that the Bill is mundane. It concerns a water pipe in and out of the River Humber. It is nothing like so dramatic as some Opposition Members would like to make out.
Others that approve the proposals are the North Killingholme parish council, Anglian Water plc, the Electricity Council, Lindsey oil refinery, Shell UK, British Telecom, the Department of the Environment, the Duchy of Lancaster, the Member of the European Parliament, the National Rivers Authority, and many others. Some 40 bodies have been consulted and none has any objection. There was no objection in the other place and there was no substantial discussion of the Bill in Committee. One reason why there was no substantial discussion was that no Labour Member turned up.

Mr. Hood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and allowing me to clear up a point arising from the Second Reading debate. Is it not a fact that, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said then, the Coalfield Communities Campaign was ordered to withdraw its petition against the Bill and did not do so voluntarily? As the Lords Committee judged that it should withdraw its petition, the CCC did not act voluntarily. I hope that he will clarify this point and clear the CCC of that terrible smear.

Mr. Knapman: The reason why the Coalfield Communities Campaign withdrew its petition must have been that it eventually realised, which the hon. Gentleman has not, that the Bill has nothing to do with coal. My hon. Friends and I have made that point at great length on Second Reading, during the debate on the revival motion and we are obliged to do so again now. The hon. Gentleman can ask that question as many times as he wishes, but he will always get the same answer—that the Bill has nothing to do with coal. The fact that this private Bill has passed through the other place and this Chamber


with only one objection to it, which was overruled, is remarkable in view of its complexity and the number of organisations that have had to be consulted.

Mr. Hood: Surely the answer to my question is that the hon. Gentleman does not know. However, that is not the answer that he gave on Second Reading when he said that he knew that the petition had been withdrawn because the petitioners no longer thought that the Bill had anything to do with coal. That was an error or untrue. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow me to cover that point later if I catch your eye.

Mr. Knapman: If an objection is withdrawn, I would not place quite so much emphasis as the hon. Gentleman on the reason why it was withdrawn. The fact is that the only objection that was made by the 40 or more organisations that were consulted was later withdrawn. That seemed to satisfy their Lordships and it should satisfy reasonable hon. Members here.
There is only one point on which I wish to detain the House any further. I refer to the cooling water works, which is a temporary scheme that has nothing to do with lagoons. The scheme that is proposed for the temporary cooling water works would extract water from the River Humber by means of two submersible pumps, mounted on an Associated British Ports (Immingham) gas jetty located 1·5 km downstream of the power station. That is not ideal, but it is a temporary scheme for which permission will be given for 18 months. It is necessary only because of the delays that have been caused to the passage of the Bill by Opposition Members. The House should note that the cost of that delay is £3 million. What is more, the delay is costing more and more every day. Most of the Opposition Members who have done most of the objecting are not in their places tonight, but they should understand that they have had their run—

Mr. Michael Brown: They have gone to Ascot.

Mr. Knapman: As my hon. Friend says, they have gone to Ascot. If that is so, I hope that they will understand just what being a member of Lloyd's is like.

Mr. Barron: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the delay in the Bill's passage is more likely to be due to the fact that the promoters were late in bringing it to the House and did not do so until all the other planning permissions had been sought and construction was going ahead? The promoters need look no further than themselves.

Mr. Knapman: The Bill was promoted two years ago. The only reason why the Bill is needed is that the provisions of the Humber Conservancy Act—[Interruption.] No, the answer to the hon. Gentleman is that it was mooted nearly two years ago. The delay is totally unacceptable, bearing in mind that Opposition Members have had nothing concrete to say on the issue. That delay is too long and brings the House into disrepute.

Mr. Terry Patchett: The hon. Gentleman constantly seeks to avoid the question of lagoons, and has even treated it with hilarity. Perhaps he does not understand the definition of a lagoon. If he does understand it, will he explain it to the House so that we are clear that he is clear what the devil we are talking about?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House once more that we are on Third Reading. I do not think that the Bill refers to lagoons, in which case it is not in order to deal with that subject at this stage.

Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In conclusion, and in direct answer to the hon. Member for Clydesdale, the Bill is not an attempt to circumvent any planning permission procedures because planning permission has already been obtained. Not one of the 40 local authorities, regulatory bodies or organisations with a legitimate interest in the Bill is now objecting to it. Therefore, I hope that the House will see its way to granting the Bill a Third Reading.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: As happened in earlier stages, tonight's debate on the Bill has exposed the inadequacies of the private Bill procedure. I have tried to choose my words carefully when referring to "inadequacies". In the four years that I have been a Member of the House, I have served on various committees and have spent long nights discussing various Bills. I have seen what happens here—the champagne parties and the chattering under the Galleries. Those things and the private Bill procedure demean this place and the sooner that that procedure is changed, the better.
My recent experience has been on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, about which I wrote a minority report. Last week the Prime Minister went to Wales and announced that the Government would introduce their own Bill on that matter because, unlike many of the Bills that are pushed through via the private Bill procedure, the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill did not get through.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that this place is demeaned when an hon. Member who is promoting a Bill tries to blame expenses that relate to the works covered by the Bill on the procedures of this place, despite the fact that the outside promoters failed to present the Bill at an early date? Does he further agree that Opposition Members have pressed for changes in the private Bill procedure month after month, and that the Government and their cronies, who are now complaining about the length of time the Bill has taken, are the ones who have delayed and obstructed those changes?

Mr. Hood: My experience has covered debates both in the Chamber and in Committee. The last Committee on which I served dealt with the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. I can remember counting the wigs who were being paid £3,000 or £5,000 per day—one could add as many noughts as one likes. I believe that it cost a minimum of £3,000 per wig, so it cost £30,000 per day —

Mr. Skinner: How many wigs were there?

Mr. Hood: At one stage there were 10 wigs, which amounted to quite a lot of money. It is therefore a bit much for the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) to talk about costs. I did not know until tonight that the hon. Gentleman is a member of Lloyd's. Although I knew that 62 Conservative Members are having sleepless nights at present, I did not know that the hon. Gentleman was one of them. He has my sympathy and I am sure that he will have the sympathy also of my general management committee when I tell its members on Friday night about


the poor souls at Lloyd's who are asking for tax concessions to bail them out when they have previously made so much money in profits in the so-called wonderful free-market economy. Those poor souls are now having to come to the Government with their hats, asking to be bailed out.

Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend know that such is the state of affairs at present with those 62 hon. Members and their friends who are members of Lloyd's that they are now staked out outside Lloyd's having avocado soup? There is now an avocado soup kitchen there.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) will not be tempted from the straight and narrow.

Mr. Hood: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I have not had my dinner tonight and the thought of going down to Lloyd's to have a plate of avocado soup was quite appealing.

Mr. Eadie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because this point is pertinent to what he was saying about people being asked to do certain jobs in relation to the promotion of the Bill. May I remind my hon. Friend that the sponsor, who is speaking on behalf of the companies, does not even live in the constituency concerned, yet he has the audacity to stand up in the House and criticise other hon. Members who make comments and who do not live in the constituency either?

Mr. Hood: I share my hon. Friend's concern about that matter. However, I want to be pragmatic and fair and I recognise that the choice of sponsor is entirely a matter for the promoters. Perhaps they observed what happened during the passage of previous Killingholme legislation and thought that they should go somewhere else because the performance of their sponsor then certainly did not impress me and it might not have impressed them. Perhaps the promoters will look for some improvement. I do not know whether they will obtain any improvement from the hon. Gentleman but I am sure that that is for reasons better known to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Knapman: What precisely is the hon. Gentleman's objection to the Bill?

Mr. Hood: I shall cover that, with the permission of Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I proceed with my speech. As I come towards the end of my speech, if the hon. Gentleman feels that I have not covered some of the matters that he would like me to cover, I hope that he will feel free to jump up.

Mr. Patchett: Could it be that a recent Bill and its sponsor in the House were assisted by unoffical whipping?

Mr. Hood: The expression "unofficial whipping" has some strange connotations. I do not know what unofficial whipping means to Conservative Members, but I am sure that many things which do not do the House credit take place in all its proceedings, not only on the Bill to which my hon. Friend refers. My experience since I became a Member suggests that such things happen often.
The hon. Member for Stroud says that the Bill is about putting pipes in and out and putting water in and out. That is a bit simplistic. The reason why the Coalfield

Communities Campaign objected to the Bill was that it had seen the effects that implementation of the Killingholme power station proposals would have on the coal industry and especially the coal communities. The hon. Member for Stroud referred to 1,000 jobs. A conservative—it is a word which does not jump out of my mouth too quickly—estimate of the effect of the gas-fired power station is that it would cause the loss of 5,000 jobs. That is 5,000 mining jobs. The multiplier effect of that loss of jobs on the mining communities would mean that teachers, doctors, nurses, engineers, salesmen, van drivers, lorry drivers, and bus drivers would lose their jobs. The list goes on and on. We are not merely talking about water in and out and pipes in and out. The Bill would have serious consequences.

Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend was talking about consequences. Some considerable time ago I read a general analysis of the Bill. It said that the area that would be most affected by job losses was the Nottingham area. Does my hon. Friend have any knowledge of that?

Mr. Hood: I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity to remind the House, for hon. Members who need reminding, that before I came to this place I was a miner for 23 years, 19 of which I spent in the Nottinghamshire coalfield. I was a coal face engineer. I have many happy memories of that time. I was also a local councillor. We did not have such good fortune then. It was a hung council when I was a member of it. There has been a massive swing to Labour since and we now have a Labour council.

Mr. Andy Stewart: It is because the hon. Gentleman is no longer there.

Mr. Hood: The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) argues, rightly or wrongly, that my departure may have enhanced Labour's prospects. I am told affectionately by my former colleagues that it might be better if I were down there, but I leave them to what they are doing.
For 19 years I worked in the coal industry in Nottinghamshire. I am aware, and the hon. Member for Sherwood will be aware, of the employment consequences for the Nottinghamshire coalfield and his constituency of a proposal such as the Killingholme power station. Most of the coal in the Nottinghamshire coalfield is steam coal for power stations. The pit where I worked, 011erton colliery, was 70 per cent. steam coal. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) worked at the Clipstone pit, which was about 80 per cent. steam coal. That is the story of the Nottinghamshire coalfield. The people at such pits will be those most affected by the Bill.
The hon. Member for Stroud chose not to talk about lagoons. As a miner and an engineer, I have some experience of lagoons. I imagine that lagoons may be developed in this operation to provide coolants. There are some advantages to creating lagoons; I state that clearly. But there are some environmental disadvantages to lagoons. In a previous debate the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) enlightened us about the biocides in the process. All of us environmental experts could be forgiven for scratching our heads when he talks about biocides. Biocides are a chemical for killing all living matter. They kill insects.


What about the animals who are in and out of the water? There will be an effect on the environment and on animal and insect life.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, biocides are additives which are put into the water to help remove barnacles, mussels, and algae and so on. The most commonly used biocide is chloride which is proved beyond all measure to be safe and is extensively used. The hon. Gentleman need not get excited about the word biocide. It is a straightforward chemical expression which explains the safety of what PowerGen and National Power seek to do.

Mr. Hood: I am tempted to have a discussion about the safety of chlorides. I have heard many sad stories about the misuse and effects of chlorides in certain circumstances. If one tried to drink water in certain parts of this country, one would not be so comforted by the hon. Gentleman's assurances.

Mr. Skinner: For example, ME sufferers.

Mr. Hood: That and several other illnesses can be ascribed to pollution from chemicals and pesticides. People in Britain and in other countries are just coming to terms with the problems created by so-called good additives which are supposed to make things better. My experience is certainly that such additives are not as good as they are said to be, and that it is a great deal better if they are not added at all in many cases. The need to use chemicals is one small example of the problems that will be caused by the creation of a lagoon. It is sad that the hon. Member for Stroud did not address the matter.
We are told that gas generation will be cleaner, less polluting and more environmentally friendly. As a Scottish Member of Parliament from a mining background and as the chairman of the energy committee of Labour Scottish Members, I know that we hope soon to have the good news that Monktonhall colliery will be reopened. I will put power generated by Monktonhall coal, Longannet coal or any other Scottish coal against any power generated by gas.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House the average thermal efficiency of a coal-fired power station and the average thermal efficiency of a combined cycle gas turbine power station?

Mr. Hood: The advantage might be 35 or even 50 per cent., but that is not the end of the argument when comparing gas with any other fuel. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) rightly said, we must consider the life expectancy of gas supplies. Only a few years ago we were talking about relying on the Soviet Union to pipe gas to the United Kingdom after the year 2000. Our reserves of coal run into hundreds of years, whereas our gas reserves will last 20 or 30 years. In terms of efficiency, therefore, coal is a better bet than other forms of fuel, including oil and gas.

Mr. Eadie: The question of pollution has cropped up at every stage of the Bill. My hon. Friend said that we expect an announcement this week about the opening of Monktonhall colliery in my constituency. Leaving aside the pollution issue, has my hon. Friend read the reports this week of likely forthcoming increases in the price of

gas? Considering that we have so much coal available, we should not be denying to our children and grandchildren their coal inheritance.

Mr. Hood: My hon. Friend's intervention reminds me of a conversation I had recently with the divisional commander of my local police force. I was trying to discuss a constituency issue, but we discussed my problem for two minutes and spent the next 10 minutes talking about a problem he had. He wanted to move with his wife into a little rural village in which I live. He complained that natural gas was not piped there and that most of the local people were relying on coal or bottled gas to run their central heating systems. It was clear from our conversation that many people who had gone over to gas were returning to coal, because of the way in which gas prices had escalated, so my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) makes a telling point.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I urge my hon. Friend to concentrate on the way in which all this use of gas represents a shocking waste of coal, remembering that coal will have a greater domestic market in the long term. In other words, we are using gas now as a replacement for coal without facing the fact that eventually the gas will run out and we will have to rely on coal. If we are not careful, there will be no coal on which to rely. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are better uses of gas, other than feeding it into power stations, bearing in mind that the Secretary of State recently told the Energy Select Committee that the capacity of all power stations built in the coming 10 years will rely on gas? Does he agree that that represents a shocking waste of coal?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot now have a debate on the merits of coal verses gas. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) is being tempted by his hon. Friends to go into that matter, but I am sure that he will return to the subject of the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope you will agree that, as the Bill makes various claims about the environmental use of gas in relation to pollution, it is in order for us to challenge that statement, bearing in mind that other sources of fuel may be less polluting. The promoters of the Bill are responsible for bringing the question of the environment into the debate. I hope that we shall be allowed to challenge their views on that subject.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It could be relevant, but it is not relevant on Third Reading to have a general debate on the merits of coal versus gas, and I felt that we were heading for such a debate. That would not be in order at this stage of the Bill.

Mr. Patchett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given that gas turbine generating involves the energy industry, I trust that my hon. Friends and I will be permitted to compare, and express concern about, the effects of the implementation of the Bill on the energy industry as a whole. If so, how can we ignore alternative fuels and the effects of their use?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let us get on.

Mr. Hood: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I humbly apologise to you for not congratulating you on the honour bestowed on you in the Queen's birthday


honours list. Perhaps I may turn this into a genuine grovelling apology by pointing out that you are one of my favourite occupants of the Chair, as you were in the Chair when I made my maiden speech. I have always appreciated the good guidance you gave me then, which has stood me in good stead ever since.
I shall not be tempted by the interventions of my hon. Friends to debate the merits of gas versus oil or any other fuel, except to say that I can never forget the remark made by the Earl of Stockton, commenting on the actions of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), to the effect that she was selling the family silver. I fear that that is analogous with what is happening to the coal industry in relation to gas, nuclear generation and the rest. We are giving away our natural heritage by closing down pits. We are certainly giving away our ability to be self sufficient in energy.

Mr. Cryer: Before my hon. Friend departs from the question of the difference between gas and coal and the relative merits of different fuels, may I ask him to remind us of the devastating effects on communities resulting from the sort of proposals that are before the House tonight? Reference has been made to the loss of perhaps 1,000 jobs. Is it not a fact that communities are devastated by pit closures? Such villages are often geographically isolated, being around pits. The introduction of gas burning resulting from the Bill will bring further pressures, not only on employment generally but on the communities centres around pits. I suggest that my hon. Friend deals with that aspect because, if he does not put it on the record, Conservative Members are likely to say that the issue has been forgotten about by Labour Members.

Mr. Hood: I assure my hon. Friend that that matter will never be forgotten by us. People used to believe that when a pit closed only the immediate mining community was affected. While that may be true of small communities, the effect of the Bill, in enabling gas generation on a large scale, will be enormous in whole coalfield communities. For example, the effects in South Yorkshire will be devastating, not only in terms of miners' jobs but on school teachers, doctors, nurses and the whole community.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Is my hon. Friend aware that Blyth power station, in the constituency of our hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson), has just announced 260 redundancies because of a reduction of electricity generation there? Does my hon. Friend agree that it does not make sense to cut capacity there and build other stations when the power station at Blyth was modernised only seven or eight years ago?

Mr. Hood: I am tempted to go into that issue in great detail, in response to my hon. Friend's important intervention, but I am sure that many of my hon. Friends who wish to take part in the debate will want to talk about similar situations affecting their constituencies. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian will agree that, whereas in our part of the world we have coal-fired power stations ticking over, Torness nuclear power station has turned out to be the enormous white elephant that we forecast it would be. In other words, there are many instances of the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell).
I remind the House that the new chairman of British Coal was appointed to do a specific job. His wages were increased from £98,000 to £220,000-odd. A week after his wage increase, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian asked the Prime Minister to comment on that increase, to which the right hon. Gentleman simply said that he must be worth the money. The new British Coal chairman has been brought in to run the industry down.

Mr. Eadie: Although the Prime Minister mentioned that the chairman was worth that salary, my hon. Friend failed to mention that he receives three times the salary of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Hood: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but perhaps that says more about the Prime Minister's opinion of himself than about his opinion of British Coal's new chairman. Only last week, that chairman warned the Government that if they do not stop the obscenity of running down the domestic coal industry and importing coal, there will be no long-term power generating contracts, and then it will prove impossible to privatise the coal industry. I find it objectionable that he should speak in such terms.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not the time for a debate on the coal industry.

Mr. Hood: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We cannot kid ourselves that this is just a wee Bill about water going in and out of a power station. It will enable a power station to come into being that will destroy jobs and communities. For that reason, I cannot support the Bill, and I hope that the House will not do so.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Just before you took the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was said of me that I have a scriptwriter. I must explain what happened. The remark was made on a previous occasion, by an Opposition Member who is not present this evening, that I am an expert. All right hon. and hon. Members know that I am of an extremely modest disposition. I denied that I was an expert, and said that I had simply done my homework.
You may also be interested to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that before you took the Chair—and we are delighted to see you in the Chair—there were 20 contributions to the debate, not including many points of order before it began. It has, therefore, been a wide-ranging debate of great interest.
I begin by pointing out that the Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill is promoted by National Power plc and PowerGen plc, which are the successor companies to the Central Electricity Generating Board. To meet the requirements for the supply of electricity, each of the two companies—and this deals with a point of order raised earlier—is in the process of constructing a gas turbine generating station at Killingholme, for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already given the necessary consent.
In operating each of those generating stations, quantities of water will be required for cooling purposes. The most convenient, economical, and environmentally


friendly method of obtaining that water will be to extract it from, and subsequently to discharge it into, the River Humber.
The Bill's main purpose, of which we should not lose sight, is to authorise the construction of intakes, outfalls, and pipes in the River Humber for cooling purposes. The authority of Parliament for the construction of those works is required in order to overcome the provisions of section 6 of the Humber Conservancy Act 1905, about which we heard an eloquent contribution from the Bill's promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman). That old Act prohibits works
beyond or riverward of the river lines"—

Mr. Barron: —"prescribed by local legislation."

Mr. Dickens: Absolutely. I am reading this preamble, but my speech will get much more exciting.

Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) must be my hon. Friend's speech writer.

Mr. Dickens: Yes; he planted it on me.
The Bill passed through all its stages in another place, and this evening we give it the Third Reading that is so vital to the companies that are promoting the Bill, their work forces, and all the contractors working on-site at the two power stations. They number many people in the Humberside region.
I turn to the nitty gritty of the Bill. Many hon. Members have lost sight of the Bill's narrow definition. It seeks permission to place works in the Humber estuary—not to make abstractions from or discharges to the river. Licences would be required from the National Rivers Authority under the Water Act 1989 and the Water Resources Act 1963 for abstraction or discharges. The NRA is empowered to license discharges into waterways, and will maintain a check on licensed emissions throughout the length of agreements.
The abstractions and discharges required for cooling will be on a significantly smaller scale that those already taking place at coastal and estuarine major power station sites. Cooling is required at power stations to condense steam that has been exhausted from steam turbines at low pressures. That cooling may be direct or indirect.
For direct cooling, water is abstracted from the source of cooling water, passed through condensers, and then returned to the source of the water. For indirect cooling, the water passing through the condensers is cooled by air using giant cooling towers, and the same water is then recirculated. Only the water that has evaporated in the cooling towers and the small quantity of purge water is required to be replaced. Purge water is water taken from a recirculating cooling system—

Mr. Barron: —
and returned to the river in order to control the concentration of materials in the water."—[Official Report, 27 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 1042.]

Mr. Dickens: The hon. Gentleman has a copy of my speech.

Mr. Hood: It has already appeared in Hansard.

Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that it was a convention of the House that speeches are not to be read. However, if my hon. Friend is to read his speech, perhaps

she will direct us to where we may obtain a copy of it. Rather earlier, my hon. Friend promised us something better, and perhaps you should rule, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether we should all have a copy of his speech so that we may enjoy it all the more.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I have no knowledge of what the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) has before him. Hon. Members are entitled to refresh their memories by the use of notes.

Mr. Dickens: I would be less than honest if I did not say that, if the two power stations and their piping that we are debating tonight were coal fired, there would be no debate. Labour has made great play of being the party for the environment, particularly in respect of power station emissions. My party says that it would like to cut emission levels by the year 2005, but Labour is on record as wanting to achieve that aim by 2000. However, we are here presented with two power stations that will be so environmentally friendly that there will be no enormous lorries making coal deliveries to the site; no mounds of ash building up around the plant; and no great sulphur emissions into the atmosphere. If Opposition Members want me to go on the attack, I will throw my notes away —[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, do."]

Mr. Hood: I ask the hon. Member to throw his notes away, because he is much more enjoyable when he is not reading out such nonsense from the Second Reading debate. If someone knocked on the hon. Gentleman's door tomorrow and said, "I am a friendly person, but I want to sack you. I want to put you on the dole. You will be thrown out of your house because you will be unable to afford the mortgage. They will probably have to close down the school because people will have to move away", would the hon. Gentleman accept such a person as a friend?

Mr. Dickens: Would I accept him as a friend? PowerGen and National Power have made a commercial board room decision which they think will satisfy all consumers and their shareholders. They feel that a gas turbine is the most sensible way forward. The decision was made in the interests of keeping the lights in the north-east burning, keeping industry in the north-east running, and ensuring a friendly environment for the people of Humberside, particularly Grimsby. I hope that the Grimsby Evening Telegraph takes note of my words.
Some people have asked why I have taken particular interest in the Bill. My constituency is nowhere near the north-east, so perhaps, on this Third Reading, I should explain. I realise that the generation of electricity is a national problem. The new National Grid Company is a carrier of electricity, so if there is a surplus in the north-east and the weather is colder in the north-west that I represent electricity could be sent from the two power stations to my constituency. Therefore, every hon. Member has a great interest in the two power stations.

Mr. Hood: I am pleased to see that the hon. Gentleman took my advice and is now ad libbing. I do not live near the north-east either, but we are discussing pollution-free and environmentally-friendly generation. Two pits in Scotland put coal into an organic power station. The coal produced in that complex is so low in sulphur that sulphur must be added at the power station in order to burn the


coal. By expanding the Scottish coalfield, as we suggest, and doubling the interconnector between Scotland and England, we could pump electricity down the wire which would be far more environmentally friendly without the consequences of those two power stations, which will generate electricity by gas.

Mr. Dickens: The House will be very interested to hear what stage those power stations have reached, which is the purpose of the Bill.
The 900 MW Killingholme combined cycle gas turbine station is taking shape fast. Moreover, the work force at the south Humberside site now numbers about 1,000 and is growing each day. About 60 per cent. of the structural steelwork for gas turbine buildings is erected and work is starting on the third floor control room. There is so much to see on the site that it is difficult to describe the massive changes that have taken place in the past few months. The two main turbine slabs, each measuring 450 cu m, are in place. All major excavation work is completed, including that for the site's cooling towers.
I am sure that hon. Members are sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for this information. Cooling water pipe work is being installed. Some 400 m of 1·5 m diameter glass-reinforced plastic pipework is involved, as well as a total of some 1·5 km of 700 mm pipework.

Mr. James Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for the extremely courteous way in which he allows me to intervene in his speech. Will he say a word about the manufacturers of the turbine generators? Are they produced in this country and, if so, is there not a good chance that they were produced in my constituency of Rugby by GEC? Does he agree that, if my supposition is correct—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. None of that has much to do with the Bill.

Mr. Pawsey: With the utmost respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it may be relevant to the amount of water being consumed, which will then go through the pipe into the Humber. As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from your experience in those matters, some generating sets use more water than others. The ones produced in my constituency are extremely water efficient.

Mr. Dickens: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend has been mischievous. I confess that I am not sure which gas turbines these are, but they would be produced under licence. The ones that threaten my hon. Friend's constituency—if I can call it that —are produced by General Electric in America. The sponsor, John Brown of Glasgow, is the main person against whom he is leading the campaign. My hon. Friend must not spring such questions on me.

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Select Committee on Energy. When the Committee was discussing gas turbines and who would profit from them, does not the hon. Gentleman recollect that it was said that most of the work would go to Germany?

Mr. Dickens: I am not sure to which companies the hon. Gentleman refers. I freely confess that I can take in all that information but sometimes have difficulty in recalling it. That is why I am not Prime Minister. I have

notes on my desk that would give the answer, so perhaps I shall drop the hon. Gentleman a line. We seem to have heard that song before.
A total of 115,000 cu m of excavative material is on site for use in later landscaping. I am sure that the House would wish to know that it is in two mounds—one measuring 130 m by 180 m in area and 5 m high. More than 500 cast-in-situ, reinforced concrete piles have been placed at an average length of 20 m. Work started at the site in February last year. The first unit is planned to begin generation next October. Initial site preparation and contractor mobilisation were achieved on time, despite the usual frustrations of the weather. The programme will be on time and within costs. That is all good news. Delivery of the first gas turbine is set for the end of October.
Therefore, it is fair to say that Killingholme teams have been pioneers in the United Kingdom for that new plant configuration, for a significantly different contract strategy, and for the changed specification format. There is little doubt that the Killingholme specification is being and will continue to be used as the model for the CCGT stations to be built during the next decade.
The spec has needed regular improvement and updating. The lessons learned have been passed on to other project teams. The PowerGen green site tombstone is also now in place and landscaping work undertaken towards the end of last year is now beginning to look most attractive. The final landscaping scheme to be implemented, once construction is complete, has been approved, in principle, by the local Glanford borough council.[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud says that he wants me to continue for another hour.

Mr. Eric Illsley: I gather from the activity on the Conservative Benches that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddlesworth (Mr. Dickens) will resume his seat in the not-too-distant future. Before he does so, may I take him back to his comments on Second Reading in relation to the biocides? He eloquently explained how the chemicals would be added to the water and how they would then be returned to the river after transmission through the appropriate pipework. The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned that aspect this evening. Will he explain more fully to us the strengths of the biocides and what effect they will have on the river?

Mr. Dickens: It would be very unfair on other hon. Members who wish to speak for me to go into such detail. As the hon. Gentleman will be accompanying me to Germany, Sweden and Denmark next week, I shall be able to tell him all about it on the aircraft.
I believe that the coal mining fraternity has fought its corner very hard. Let us suppose, however, that there was an equal body of support for nuclear energy, oil-fired power stations, windmills or solar power. It would be narrow-minded and spiteful of their opponents to try to deprive National Power and PowerGen of the facility to install pipes for cooling purposes simply because they did not approve of the form of electricity generation that had been chosen.
The coal industry's only salvation is the current high level of productivity, in comparison with that of the dark days following the year-long miners' strike led by Arthur Scargill. The men at the coal face are responding


brilliantly. The industry's future lies in its own hands: if it continues in its present vein, it will always have a major role to play.
None of those considerations, however, should send hon. Members through the Lobby to vote against the insertion of pipes in the estuary. I understand why one or two hon. Members should take that line—they are the ones who fight the coal industry's corner so bitterly—but I am surprised that the Opposition as a whole should do so.

Mr. Barron: That is not true.

Mr. Dickens: Does that mean that the Opposition will not vote tonight? That is splendid news. In that case, we should listen to what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

Mr. Terry Patchett: I do not think that any hon. Member would argue with me if I said that I do not ask for much time to speak on the Floor of the House. Having read the Bill, however, I felt slightly puzzled and rather disturbed: I feared that the procedures of the House were being misused.
The Bill includes the words
whereas it is expedient that each of the two companies"—
that is, National Power and PowerGen—
should be empowered to acquire lands".
I did not think that the House was here to accommodate outside interests in connection with a matter of expediency; I am a bit concerned about the wording of that clause.
Another part of the Bill states:
In the construction of the National Power works or the PowerGen works, as the case may be, the appropriate company may deviate laterally from the lines or situations thereof shown on the deposited plans".
What powers does the Bill give the two companies? I am worried by the use of the word "expedient", and by the Government's lenient attitude towards sticking to what was initially provided. This is a private Bill; who will exercise control? The Bill seems to provide for a free-for-all.
The Bill also states:
The appropriate company may use, appropriate and dispose of the materials from time to time dredged by them from the river".
That means that any such material can be deposited anywhere, on land or at sea. A later part of the clause starts to ring bells with me, however. It states:
nor shall such materials be deposited on the foreshore or bed of the river without the consent of A. B. Ports.
It continues:
Nothing in this section shall authorise any interference with any subaqueous cable belonging to or used by British Telecommunications plc.
All those companies have reason to be grateful to the Government. Why do the same names constantly crop up in private Bill procedure? It occurs to me that the Government have a hidden agenda, involving tacit approval of the misuse of private Bill procedure. I am talking about unofficial whipping. I do not know what the Government's arrangements are for the whipping of the business that follows this, but I would lay even money on its being a fair whip, so that Conservative Members can return to consider whether to vote on the Bill. We saw the same arrangements operating for the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill; I find it insidious and offensive.

Mr. Hood: My hon. Friend is obviously referring to the champagne dinners to which Tory Members were invited in return for supporting the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. Associated British Ports is always being mentioned in debates on private Bills. I referred earlier to my part in the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, of which the Prime Minister spoke so affectionately in Swansea last week. Associated British Ports was given lifelong, copper-bottomed guarantees that it would be looked after it the barrage went ahead. Like my hon. Friend, I feel concerned when Associated British Ports keeps cropping up; someone is making a killing.

Mr. Patchett: We can speculate on the question of killings, and on that of champagne dinners—or lunches. Where does one have champagne? I am not too sure.

Mr. Michael Brown: I can tell the hon. Gentleman where he can get champagne. If he read The Sunday Times last week, he will know about an important party held by the Leader of the Opposition and attended by various actors and actresses. Many of the great and the good were there, including the Mandelson brigade from Walworth road. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not present. Nor was I—we were not invited. The Labour party was drinking champagne in Berkeley square. I am only sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not invited either.

Mr. Eadie: rose—

Mr. Patchett: No, I should like to respond to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown).
The people to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred paid their own way. They were not paid for by an outside company. None the less, I anticipate drinking a few glasses of champagne in the months ahead, following Labour victories in by-elections and subsequently in a general election. Perhaps we shall not see the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes then.

Mr. Eadie: Is not my hon. Friend's answer to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) that in the past six, seven or eight months the Tory party has had nothing to celebrate, whereas the Labour party has been celebrating its resounding by-election victories?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May we get back to the Bill, please?

Mr. Patchett: I anticipate many more victories.

Mr. Dickens: We seem to be talking more about champagne than about water in the Humber estuary. Will the hon. Gentleman give us his views on the Bill?

Mr. Patchett: I was simply responding to questions about champagne. I did not introduce the subject, but I am grateful for the expert knowledge of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes.

Mr. Illsley: Is not the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) complaining so much about the party to which he referred because, despite being such a well-known freeloader, he did not get a ticket?

Mr. Patchett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. I am not too familiar with the ambitions of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes.
It seems that the Government are guilty of misusing the private Bill procedure because they have quietly supported private Bills on energy. Despite their talk about the free market, they have a hidden energy programme.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) challenged Labour Members to declare their interests. I make no apology for talking about the effects of the Bill on the energy industry, nor do I apologise for expressing concern about the misuse of the procedures of the House. The hon. Member for Stroud has now disappeared.

Mr. Hood: My hon. Friend is looking for the hon. Member for Stroud, who has just walked into the Chamber and I am pleased to see him here. The hon. Gentleman may be excused for leaving the Chamber at 9.30 pm as I understand that an amendment to the Finance Bill is being discussed in Standing Committee whereby members of Lloyd's are asking for handouts from the taxpayer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I very much hope that the hon. Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) will not seek to pursue that matter.

Mr. Patchett: I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Stroud has returned. The hon. Gentleman challenged Labour Members to declare their interests. He keeps running in and out of the Chamber to hand scripts to Conservative Members. One of the script writers must be Hansard, because the points that he was reading appeared in Hansard on Second Reading.

Mr. Knapman: Will the hon. Gentleman turn his attention from Lloyd's to the National Union of Mineworkers? I have been asked to give certain undertakings, but can the hon. Gentleman assure us that Labour Members are not getting a kickback from the NUM? If they are, they will be disappointed, because most of the NUM's money is missing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We should return to the contents of the Bill rather than debate these other matters.

Mr. Patchett: I was moving on, but I want to point out to the hon. Member for Stroud that I have not mentioned Lloyd's. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes referred to champagne; I did not mention Lloyd's or champagne.

Mr. Eadie: Apologise.

Mr. Hood: Apologise.

Mr. Patchett: I hope that the hon. Member for Stroud will have the dignity to apologise.

Mr. Knapman: If the hon. Gentleman will apologise for the assertions that he made about me, I shall apologise for the assertions that I made about him.

Mr. Patchett: I have made no assertions. Some of my colleagues may have mentioned Lloyd's, but I did not do so.
I was saying that the hon. Member for Stroud challenged Labour Members to declare their interests. Unfortunately, when I said that, the hon. Gentleman was

not in the Chamber. He returned and made gross accusations, accusing me of slandering him in some way. I did not mention Lloyd's.

Mr. Hood: Why not?

Mr. Patchett: I am taking insurance.
The hon. Member for Stroud challenged Opposition Members to declare what interest they had in or contact with Killingholme. I tried to clarify the matter and explained that, as a Member of Parliament, I was worried that private Bill procedures had been misused by the Government.[Interruption.]

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a conversation going on in the Chamber.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There have been conversations all over the House. I hope that hon. Members will concentrate on the hon. Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett).

Mr. Patchett: I am grateful to you for trying to bring some order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was talking over the heads of hon. Members who were perhaps expecting their next champagne supper. As a Member of Parliament, I am entitled to feel worried if there is a misuse of the procedures of the House. Some private Bills have been introduced with the tacit agreement of the Government. That is a misuse of our procedures, and I declare my interest in that respect.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Patchett: I have given way a lot. If I may, I shall finish my point.
As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it has always been my policy to be brief and to the point. Constant interruptions have prolonged my remarks. That makes me suspect that there will be no champagne suppers tonight, so Conservative Members have come to have some fun in the Chamber. I do not find this matter funny. I am trying to get on with a serious debate—[Interruption.] Perhaps I could listen to the conversation that is taking place.

Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman referred to his distress at the idea that Conservative Members were perhaps heavily whipped to attend the next debate on the teachers' pay motion, so we shall all be here to vote for this excellent Bill, which was eloquently supported by Conservative Members but commented on in a stuttering and faltering way by Opposition Members. Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the strength of the Whip is determined by the Opposition? If they had chosen to let the excellent teachers' pay motion go through on a one-line Whip, perhaps there would not have been as many Conservative Members here.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us return to the Bill.

Mr. Patchett: Conservative Members have been more than a little frivolous in the debate. That is shameful. I have been trying for a long time to conclude.
I tried to make it clear to the hon. Member for Stroud that I had doubts about the misuse of the private Bill procedure. I have doubts also about the use of private Bills on energy, given that that involves serious matters. Associated British Ports opened the ports to foreign coal, and the Bill must be seen in the context of effects on the energy industry and on the country. I understand, although I have my doubts, that the Government are


fighting inflation. Who is paying the bill? It is the 2.5 million unemployed, not Conservative Members. One of the contributors to inflation is the deficit in the balance of payments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is inviting the House to debate the Government's counter-inflation policies. He should return to the subject of the Bill.

Mr. Patchett: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we are debating the generating industry.

Mr. Eadie: The point that my hon. Friend is trying to make was made earlier in the debate and is about the Bill's general impact on Nottinghamshire. My hon. Friend is saying that we cannot debate the Bill in isolation because it has an impact on areas other than the one to which it relates.

Mr. Patchett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, with whom I agree. The Bill is part of a hidden agenda. About 15 minutes ago when I started my speech I sought to explain to the hon. Member for Stroud why we have such a determined interest in the Bill. There is room for concern and I hope that the lovers of the House and its procedures will watch the situation closely and think seriously about their attitude to the Bill, which is following the same lines as many other private Bills. The private Bill procedure is being misused.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): This debate on the Bill is one of a series. I spoke in the two debates in January and February. A certain pattern and routine has developed and some of the points are a little familiar. I do not have much to add to what I said in the two earlier debates, especially as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) gave much excellent information about the Bill when he opened the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) gave another comprehensive and technical analysis which confirmed his reputation as something of an expert on the subject. When he strayed from his notes he scored some effective political points, but I shall not follow that line.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) is to walk in the foothills of immortality? Does he further agree that our hon. Friend is a jewel in the life of the House and should be encouraged to participate in every debate? It is monstrous that he does not sit on the Treasury Bench.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I always agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames). It is an honour and a privilege to be in the same debate as my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth.
The Bill's scope is narrow. It simply seeks to provide water cooling works for two power stations for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, after scrutinising all the necessary considerations, gave permission early last year. No environmental objections have been raised to these water works and no planning objections were raised by the local authorities concerned. The ancillary works are plainly necessary for the effective

and efficient operation of the power stations which have been given consent. The Government therefore believe that this is a good Bill and that it should be passed.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I do not intend to delay the House, as many of the points concerning the impact that the Bill may have on electricity generation were discussed in the two previous debates and I do not intend to go over them again.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) discussed my position in respect of Second Reading and Humberside county council, and claimed that I had said that I would contact that council. What I said was:
I have not, nor has the council contacted me about my Second Reading speech or my actions in that connection. I would be more than happy, however, to receive representatives of that authority—as I did in respect of
other
legislation".—[Official Report, 27 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 1054.]
I have received nothing from Humberside county council to date.

Mr. Knapman: Apparently the hon. Gentleman has not heard from Humberside county council, but has he heard from his hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley)—the invisible men—about this issue?

Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, when my hon. Friends' names came up previously, I explained in some detail why they and some of my other hon. Friends were not happy about National Power and PowerGen because of the deception used to get the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill through the House. ABP's representatives said during the Committee stage that Associated British Ports had no plans in respect of the Humber coal terminal, but we found out a few weeks later that both ABP's representatives were taking a 40 per cent. stake in the coal terminal on Humberside. As I said then, my hon. Friends were against deception of that sort.
As for delay, I told the hon. Member for Stroud that if the Bill had been thought out properly when initial planning permission for the two generators was sought, the measure would have got through Parliament sooner. This Bill in effect completes planning permission for the six generators mentioned in it. The fault lies with the promoters, and we should also blame the Leader of the House, a Cabinet Minister, who received recommendations from the Procedure Committee last year on changing private Bill procedure in the House, yet has failed so far to act on those recommendations. As a result, several private Bills have been held up by hon. Members coming in at 2.30 pm and shouting, "Object," or putting down blocking motions. The sooner the Leader of the House sorts out our private Bill procedure and acts on the recommendations of the Committee the sooner we shall sleep easy at night—but that is up to the Government.
We objected strongly to the Government's apparent dash for gas in the form of new generators—a dash initiated by the electricity generators and supported by the Government. That will lead to a depletion of a premium fuel in this country which, in turn, will mean that in time we will come to depend on imported gas.

Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend said that in time we would be dependent on imported gas and that is correct. There


will be a greater dependence on imported gas. But is my hon. Friend aware that we are importing gas at present which will affect our balance of payments?

Mr. Barron: That is right. My hon. Friend will know that I went in some detail into the question of gas reserves in Britain on Second Reading and I do not intend to do so again now. I raised that matter because the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) said that the generation of electricity is a national problem, and it is.

Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Members for Crawley (Mr. Soames) and for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) have no particular interest in the Bill, but they are interfering. I am trying to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), but the hon. Member for Crawley has not stopped yakking since I came in. I should have thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would have taken notice of that. We are trying to concentrate on what is being said by my hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box. I wish that you would deal with that behaviour.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take the point. I had noted the behaviour of the hon. Members for Crawley (Mr. Soames) and for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and I was becoming increasingly distracted by it. I very much hope that they will desist and let the rest of us listen to what is being said.

Mr. Soames: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With great respect to you, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is the Member of Parliament most intimately concerned with the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That does not entitle him or anyone else to misbehave in a manner that distracts the House. [Interruption.] Order. When I deem it appropriate I shall reproach other hon. Members in a similar way, but I hope that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes will leave it to the Chair. I hope that I shall now be given the opportunity to listen to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron).

Mr. Barron: If the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who does not appear to be listening to the debate, had the interests of his constituents at heart he might have promoted the Bill instead of dodging it and leaving it to the hon. Member for Stroud, who comes a few hundred miles away from the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
In January this year I said:
we are reluctant to give our approval to the Bill, as it will enable the construction of two gas turbine generating stations without"—
I emphasise that—
the House giving due consideration to the implications of increasing gas generation of electricity."—[Official Report, 14 January 1991; Vol. 183, c. 680.]
Sadly, we have not yet had such a debate. One does many things reluctantly in life and perhaps the Bill will go through. There may be some reluctance to support it among Opposition Members, but that is due to the absence of any general debate about energy strategy and, in particular, electricity generation. That is particularly

important, because since the Government privatised the electricity supply industry there have been major question marks over what will happen in the future and there have been major redundancies within the industry, with power stations closing and thousands of people being made redundant from power stations and offices. But we have not yet had a debate about Britain's energy strategy. Instead, the Government have only been prepared to sell off the industry so that many people, some of them Labour supporters, I accept, but many of them Conservative supporters and institutions, have been able to make a killing at the expense of the public purse. There have been increases in electricity bills, such as the 11 per cent. domestic increase that we have had this year, as a result of privatisation, but we still have not yet had a debate about the future of Britain's energy. That is wrong. It is an omission which must be put right, but it appears that that will only be done after the next general election.
On Second Reading the hon. Member for Stroud attempted to explain why the Bill provides for six sets of intakes and outfalls when only two are presently needed for the proposed two power stations. The hon. Gentleman said that that was so that National Power and PowerGen could develop the site further without coming back to Parliament.
It seems strange to me that we are being asked to grant powers for hypothetical future projects additional to those that have been authorised. That presumably means that any future projects will not be subject to any environmental assessments as the applications will already have been granted. It also means that the preamble is extremely misleading. There was a point of order on the subject at the start of our proceedings on the Bill tonight. The preamble says:
each of the two companies"—
that is, National Power and PowerGen—
proposes to construct on the lands vested in that company a gas turbine generating station".
But the hon. Member for Stroud suggested that there would be more than one station each. Why else would planning applications be sought for six sets of intakes and outfalls?
It is clear that the preamble is misleading. The Committee did not take notice of the wording, and there is nothing that we can do about it now. One of my hon. Friends asked last week whether anything could be done about it, and nothing could, but the preamble still seeks to mislead. We shall have to wait and see whether the other power stations are gas-fired.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes was screaming and waving his hands about some years ago when there was talk of a low-level nuclear dump near the site in his constituency. He threatened to cause a by-election by resigning to fight the Government if permission was given.

Mr. Michael Brown: rose—

Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman might have something to say about the measure having been rushed through if the next four power stations proposed for the site happened to be pressurised water reactors.

Mr. Brown: I do have something to say: but for the fact that my constituents and I defeated that proposal through a campaign against nuclear waste, the Bill would not have been introduced. The proposal was for a nuclear dump on


the site where we shall now have the flower of power stations. Those power stations owe their existence to the campaign I ran five years ago.

Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman claims much credit, but if my memory serves me well, he was ably assisted at that time by the then Government Chief Whip, whose constituency faced a similar threat. The right hon. Gentleman, too, used his influence to have the project stopped, yet now he is the pro-nuclear Secretary of State for Energy, who goes round telling us how nuclear power stations are good for the country. Five years ago he did not think that low-level nuclear waste dumps were good—they were certainly not good for his prospects of being re-elected.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: rose—

Mr. Barron: I shall not give way on that point, because I said that I wanted to keep my speech short, and I want to move on to the rest of my argument about the Bill. On second thoughts, I am being unfair to my hon. Friend. I shall give way to him, because I know that he is concerned about Northumberland.

Mr. Campbell: I was simply going to ask whether we were talking about a case of "not on my back door"?

Mr. Barron: The NIMBY—not in my back yard—syndrome became active among Conservative Members before June 1987, and no doubt it will be active again now until June 1992.
The second part of my argument is about the environmental impact of the choice of cooling towers for the sites. Her Majesty's inspectors of pollution produce notes for guidance on what constitutes the best available techniques not entailing excessive costs—BATNEEC is the acronym, I believe. Those notes say that cooling lowers should be of the dry type, and that justification must be provided for wet cooling towers. Dry cooling is essentially air cooling and does not involve sending large clouds of steam into the air.
The Minister is not likely to point out that the guidelines, which I shall quote later, originally referred to oil and coal-fired rather than gas-fired stations. But the cooling systems on different types of fossil-fuel power stations are all the same. There is as yet no new technology other than that referred to in those notes.
The new controls under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will apply from 1 April 1992. When HMIP issues the notes for gas turbine stations, the guidelines will be similar to those on the present cooling systems. In that respect there is no difference between gas turbines and other types, as I have said.
There are a number of environmental considerations to be taken into account in considering power plant cooling systems. They include intake effects, discharge effects both thermal and chemical, water consumption, plume and drift, land use and noise.
The whole House will remember that, on Second Reading, that master of detail, the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth, discussed at some length the subject of cooling. He did not mention the possibility of dry cooling. He contrasted two systems—direct cooling and indirect cooling, both of which, I understand, are wet systems. He did not mention the environmental

disadvantages of the clouds of steam emanating from the cooling towers of the wet system, even though Her Majesty's pollution inspectorate's guidance note state:
the operator should justify the use of wet cooling towers and should identify the means to be employed to prevent adverse effects due to water fog or droplets and should identify how monitoring will be undertaken".
In his Second Reading discourse the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth merely suggested thai: the wet indirect system proposed at Killingholme would be cheaper and would produce less water than the direct system. It would seem, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman's account of the environmental options and effects was less than complete. Perhaps that is not surprising, given the hon. Gentleman's mastery of detail in that debate.
The generators may well be able to justify the use of wet cooling towers but it does not appear that they have been asked to do so. It seems that alternative systems were not properly canvassed in the environmental assessment for the project prepared for the application to the Secretary of State. So in authorising not two but six sets of intakes and outfalls, we would appear to be pre-empting future decisions regarding the most satisfactory cooling systems for the extension of the power station, and that could lead to emissions of much larger clouds of steam in the future.
I see that the hon. Member for Johannesburg, South is in his place. It seems, indeed, that he is nodding his head. I must say to him, and—perhaps more important—to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, who is sitting next to him, that these are very important issues in terms of making environmental assessments for the building of any large combustion plants covered by the directives to which the inspectors are putting their minds at present If the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes had any concern about his constituents—he keeps telling us that he has—he would have looked into the matter but not just in respect of the two cooling systems that have been accepted. He would have looked into the possibility of having dry cooling systems for any further developments on the site to protect the interests of those who live in the locality.

Mr. Moss: The hon. Gentleman is normally an expert on these matters, but I am afraid that tonight he is misleading the House on the environmental question. Does not he realise that combined cycle gas uses only about a third of the steam to generate electricity? Moreover, the water required to cool the steam down is 5 per cent. of that required in all other conventional stations, including the coal-fired stations of which he is so enamoured.

Mr. Barron: We shall still have steam plumes no matter what type of generation is used. The test is to be found in Her Majesty's inspectors' standards laid down for any environmental assessment of the plant. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that similar tests are laid down in respect of any form of power station to be built under the current EEC directives—and no doubt under more directives in future.
As with so many aspects of the Bill, the energy and environmental implications have given us cause for concern, especially in view of the absence of any debate about the direction in which the electricity generating industry in Britain is going following the privatisation of the electricity supply industry. The country is worth more than that. These major issues should have been debated. I


am sure that many members of the Select Committee on Energy would agree that they are of national importance and that they merit debate rather than silence. It is no good the Government dodging major issues that will affect future decisions, even though they were quite happy to sell off the industries to make sure that they made money for the Treasury.
As I said when we first debated the Bill, it would be with reluctance that we would give permission for the stations to be built. No one thinks, however, that that will not be done. If there is a vote tonight on Third Reading, the Labour party will not be opposing it; we have never said that we would. We have opposed the absence of a strategic and sensible national debate, which the Government have dodged. When we are in government, one of the first things that we do will be to give Conservative Members, who will be on the Opposition Benches, the opportunity to get involved in such debates which are, as the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth said, of major national importance.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: I apologise to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) because I was not in the Chamber to hear all of his speech. However, I agree that we should have a post-privatisation debate on the power supply industry. That is a very good idea. I should at this point declare that I am a fellow elect of the Industry and Parliamentary Trust, doing my attachment with National Power.
We have heard and are still hearing a lot of dark mutterings from some sections of the Labour party about what they call the Government's hidden agenda. All sorts of things have been read into the Bill and there have been comments attached to it about an abuse of procedure, but the Bill should not be made to bear that burden. It is merely an attempt to amend a small and insignificant Act of 1905. If one wishes to change the law, one must pass a law to do so. The statute of 1905 was passed some time ago, but that does not alter the fact that it is still in force today just as much as if it had been passed only yesterday and just as much as a statute from 1500 is still in force today.
We have discussed such matters as thermal efficiency. It is certain that a combined cycle gas turbine power station which has a thermal efficiency of about 50 per cent. will be far less polluting and far more efficient than a conventional coal-fired power station, which has a thermal efficiency of only about 35 per cent.
I recently visited a power station in East Germany. It was supposed to be a state-of-the-art power station but when I asked the operators about its thermal efficiency, at first they could not tell me. They went to find out and then told me with great pride in their voices that it operated at a thermal efficiency of 26 per cent. I think that they were rather surprised when I was not exactly bowled over.
The new power stations do not operate on either wind or hydro-electricity—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is moving towards a reference to the Bill.

Mr. Summerson: I should certainly not have mentioned that if I had thought that you were going to rule me out of

order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had intended to move on from the alternative sources of power to the gasification of coal in the sea. That ideal would answer many of the issues raised by members of the Opposition, who seem to think that gas-fired power stations and coal-fired power stations are mutually exclusive, which need not necessarily be so. If the technology that I have mentioned is developed, as I am sure that it will be, power stations such as Killingholme will be powered not by natural gas from the North sea but by gas from the coalfields. I am sure that most people would agree that that would be a fit and proper use for coal.
As we all know, the real purpose of the Bill is to enable the laying of pipes in the estuary of the Humber. When I last visited the Humber—indeed, whenever I have visited the Humber—I have never thought it an especially attractive piece of water. The waters of the Humber hardly sparkle. The laying of pipes in or under the estuary may improve its rather dismal look and may even improve the various varieties of wildlife which flourish in and around the Humber estuary. There will be some effect—[Interruption.] I am enjoying standing here talking to myself. Some slight raising of the temperature in the waters of the Humber may be a good thing. The Bill may have that effect when it becomes law.
The mussels in the Humber will improve their growth once they feel the tingling effect of the slight warming of the rather dull and murky waters of the Humber. The Bill will produce a great improvement all round and I have no hesitation in saying that I support it.

Mr. Michael Welsh: The abuse of planning permission as a result of the Bill is very important. That aspect involves all of us. Local authorities and communities should be involved in planning. Hon. Members may say that it is a minor detail, but the Bill abuses the right of the planning authority.
Part III concerns lands and refers to such new rights "as they may require" over any of the lands. That means that almost anything can be done on the land. Clause 20(3) says:
References in this section to rights over land include references to the right to do, or to place and maintain, anything in, on or under the land or in the airspace above its surface.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) said, that means that there may be plans for other development. The Bill will give the relevant bodies permission to do anything that they desire under the ground in the given area.
Although this is a private Bill, it seems that all Conservative Members support it. The Bill may be used to allow something else, such as nuclear dumping, and people will say that the Bill was passed by the House. The Bill says:
on or under the land or in the airspace above its surface.
This must be the only country that gives permission for anyone who owns land to do anything in the airspace above. In America, a great place of enterprise, someone who erects a building does not own the airspace above it. One can sell the building, but one cannot do what one likes in the airspace above it.
The provisions in clause 20 are deplorable. They may be a small matter, but they are important to people involved in planning. The people who are supposed to own the land


now could sell it or other people might buy them out. They would have a golden opportunity to do anything that they desired below the ground, on the ground or above the ground without going through any planning procedures. That is not right. I believe in local government arid local planning so that the individuals concerned and the community can study proposed developments.
I have pointed out what is being asked for in the Bill and, if the Bill is passed, it will be what Conservative Members have deemed their sole desire. I do not think that environmentalists will like that, but I do not know. Conservative Members are not bothered about the environment—many of them could not care less about it. That is their choice and I am not criticising it. However, our choice is to be bothered about the environment and we should like to know what is happening. We should also like the local planning committee and the local community to know what is happening so that they can hold inquiries before planning permission is given. If Conservative Members are not bothered about the local community or planning matters, that is okay—there is nothing wrong with that. Their love of private enterprise means that they overrule anything that happens outside the Chamber. That is okay if it is their wish and desire. They are the Government and they can do it. However, I am afraid that individuals outside the House may disagree with Conservative Members on occasions and may even disagree with them on important matters.
I turn now to the way in which the Bill deals with land. Clause 21 begins:
If the deposited plans or the deposited book of reference are inaccurate".
That means that if the applicants—the faceless ones—have produced something that is inaccurate, even with all the money at their disposal, they will still be protected. Such an undertaking should not be allowed to produce inaccurate plans, but it has covered itself if it does so. If the House agrees to that, it is agreeing to inefficiency. Again, I am not condemning that because if you believe in inefficiency—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not bring me into this.

Mr. Welsh: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I did not mean to do so and I apologise.
If Conservative Members believe in inefficiency, so be it. I am not complaining about that. They can condone inefficiency, but the Opposition do not and we have no intention of doing so.
Clause 21 also refers to what would happen if those responsible
are inaccurate in their description of any land, or in their statement or description of the ownership or occupation of any land".
In such circumstances, the company may apply for a correction. The promoters have paid for this country's greatest expertise, but they are asking to be excused if they are wrong. How terribly nice. I find that unbelievable and deplorable, but it is part of the Bill—[Interruption.] Well, I am reading from the Bill. I may be wrong, but I do not think so.

Mr. Alan Meale: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the planning suggestions contained in the Bill were put to a local planning committee, they would be thrown out?

Mr. Welsh: As my hon. Friend says, such suggestions would be thrown out; or if the council was Labour, it would discuss the plans with the applicant to try to come to some amicable agreement. That is what a Labour council would do and that is what good planning is all about, but the Bill is not about good planning.
To return to clause 21, if the plans are inaccurate, the provisions refer to
the appropriate company after giving not less than 10 days' notice to the owner, lessee and occupier of the land in question may apply to two justices having jurisdiction in the place where the land is situated for the correction thereof.
The 10-days provision is fair enough, but we are talking about a democracy. Anything that is passed in the House is important, irrespective of to whom it applies. I know that you are smiling, but I also know that many of your hon. Friends who are landowners go away for a month—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that all hon. Members are my hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman must not keep bringing me into these matters.

Mr. Welsh: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many individuals on both sides of the House go away for a month. The matter comes up within 10 days. Indeed, some people go away for three months. I do not criticise them for that. The best of British luck to them. Sometimes they go to the Caribbean, a place that I do not claim to know. However, the time is limited. That is the issue. The matter should be open all round. That is to ask for nothing but democracy.

Mr. Moss: I am almost loth to stop the hon. Gentleman in full flow. He talks about democracy. If he continues, he will have read the whole Bill out to us. Is he aware that in the Committee stage on 27 March no Labour Member attended, no amendments were tabled and the Bill went through in record time on the nod? If the Labour party is so incensed about the Bill, why did it not participate in the democratic process?

Mr. Eadie: I hope that when my hon. Friend answers that point he will bear in mind that, although the Bill is supposed to be a private Bill, time without number throughout its stages we have seen the payroll vote wheeled in. There has been an official vote on the Bill. How can the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) talk about democracy when the use of the payroll vote has been an abuse of democracy?

Mr. Welsh: My hon. Friend is correct. If you use the payroll vote to steamroll a private Bill through the House, you cannot expect Opposition Members to treat it with anything but contempt. That is what it is about. If you allow complete freedom, there would be more democracy in this Chamber and that would be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Another important point arises from clause 22 and compensation claims. You talk about backing two horses in a two-horse race. If the Bill becomes an Act, any private individual who has a small factory and employs three or four men would not be able to extend that factory one bit but would receive no compensation. When you give permission, as you most probably will, people will probably be told three years before construction starts. A man in private enterprise might think, "1 have got a good thing going here. I will employ another 10 men. There are


8,000 unemployed in the area." If he then cannot extend his factory, he will receive no compensation. Compensation is paid only when the Bill is enacted.

Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. I find it difficult to understand one matter. I wonder whether my hon. Friend can correct or assist me. I understand that it was a Tory Government way back in the 1950s who amended the Land Acts to the effect that one paid only the value—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult to find any connection between what the hon. Gentleman is saying and the Bill.

Mr. Eadie: With all due respect, it is my fault and not your fault, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend was making a point about values and how they will be affected by the power station that is being built. My hon. Friend asserts that owners of adjacent land will suffer a loss. As I understand it, an Act away in the 1950s changed the basis for assessing the value of land from the existing use to the value at that particular time.
An existing use facility in, say, an area resembling a desert would warrant a small amount of compensation, but if the value of the land became enhanced, the value of the existing use would increase substantially. I hope that my hon. Friend will deal in more detail with the question of the value of land and existing use, remembering that land with no value—

Mr. Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are some hon. Members who hold strong views on this issue, who have attended the debates on the Bill through thick and thin and who have listened to all the arguments today. We are being forced to listen to unadulterated claptrap from the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie). Disguised as a point of order, his remarks plainly amount to a speech. We crave the protection of the Chair for the rights of Back Benchers who have something to say other than the filibustering that is now taking place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understood that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), to whom reference has been made, was intervening and not making a point of order. I reproached him, and he then volunteered the point that he was making.

Mr. Welsh: My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) makes a vital point. It proves that a business man with a small factory who wishes to expand and to provide more employment may not receive more compensation after extending his factory than he would have otherwise received. That will be the position when you have passed the Bill. You will be depriving—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not me.

Mr. Welsh: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government will remove the freedom of choice from employers to extend their works in that way. Conservative Members may not object to freedom of choice being removed. We have no intention of allowing that to happen. In a democracy, freedom of choice is vital.
Pathways run across a great deal of land, but clause 23 begins:

All private rights of way over any land which may be acquired compulsorily under this Act shall be extinguished on the acquisition of the land".
In other words, all private rights such as byways—

Mr. Knapman: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 104.

Division No. 178]
[9.57


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dover, Den


Allason, Rupert
Dunn, Bob


Alton, David
Durant, Sir Anthony


Amess, David
Eggar, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Ashby, David
Fishburn, John Dudley


Aspinwall, Jack
Fookes, Dame Janet


Atkins, Robert
Forman, Nigel


Atkinson, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Baldry, Tony
Franks, Cecil


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
French, Douglas


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fry, Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gale, Roger


Beith, A. J.
Gardiner, Sir George


Bellingham, Henry
Gill, Christopher


Bellotti, David
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bottomley, Peter
Gregory, Conal


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Ground, Patrick


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hague, William


Bowis, John
Hannam, John


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Brazier, Julian
Harris, David


Bright, Graham
Hawkins, Christopher


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hayes, Jerry


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Burns, Simon
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Burt, Alistair
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Butcher, John
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Butler, Chris
Hill, James


Butterfill, John
Holt, Richard


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howells, Geraint


Carr, Michael
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carrington, Matthew
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Carttiss, Michael
Irvine, Michael


Cash, William
Jack, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Janman, Tim


Chapman, Sydney
Johnston, Sir Russell


Chope, Christopher
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Colvin, Michael
Kilfedder, James


Conway, Derek
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Knapman, Roger


Cormack, Patrick
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Couchman, James
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knowles, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knox, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lawrence, Ivan


Day, Stephen
Lee, John (Pendle)


Devlin, Tim
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lightbown, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Livsey, Richard






Lord, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Speed, Keith


Maclean, David
Speller, Tony


McLoughlin, Patrick
Squire, Robin


Malins, Humfrey
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mans, Keith
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Maples, John
Stern, Michael


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stevens, Lewis


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stokes, Sir John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Summerson, Hugo


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Miller, Sir Hal
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Mills, Iain
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Miscampbell, Norman
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Moate, Roger
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thorne, Neil


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thurnham, Peter


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Tracey, Richard


Needham, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walden, George


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Paice, James
Wallace, James


Patnick, Irvine
Waller, Gary


Pawsey, James
Ward, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Portillo, Michael
Watts, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wells, Bowen


Price, Sir David
Wheeler, Sir John


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Whitney, Ray


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Wiggin, Jerry


Riddick, Graham
Wilkinson, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Winterton, Mrs Ann


(Conwy)
Winterton, Nicholas


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wolfson, Mark


Rowe, Andrew
Wood, Timothy


Sackville, Hon Tom
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, David (Dover)



Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Mr. Malcolm Moss and


Shersby, Michael
Mr. Michael Brown.


Sims, Roger



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ashton, Joe


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)


Anderson, Donald
Barron, Kevin





Battle, John
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Beckett, Margaret
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Bell, Stuart
Livingstone, Ken


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Loyden, Eddie


Blunkett, David
McAllion, John


Boateng, Paul
McAvoy, Thomas


Boyes, Roland
McFall, John


Bradley, Keith
McKelvey, William


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
McMaster, Gordon


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Marek, Dr John


Buckley, George J.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Caborn, Richard
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Callaghan, Jim
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Martlew, Eric


Canavan, Dennis
Maxton, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Meale, Alan


Cohen, Harry
Michael, Alun


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cousins, Jim
Morgan, Rhodri


Cryer, Bob
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cummings, John
Murphy, Paul


Dalyell, Tam
Nellist, Dave


Dewar, Donald
O'Brien, William


Dixon, Don
Patchett, Terry


Dobson, Frank
Pike, Peter L.


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Primarolo, Dawn


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Randall, Stuart


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Rogers, Allan


Eadie, Alexander
Rowlands, Ted


Eastham, Ken
Short, Clare


Edwards, Huw
Skinner, Dennis


Fatchett, Derek
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Fisher, Mark
Snape, Peter


Flynn, Paul
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Foster, Derek
Soley, Clive


Foulkes, George
Steinberg, Gerry


Fyfe, Maria
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Vaz, Keith


Golding, Mrs Llin
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Gordon, Mildred
Wigley, Dafydd


Graham, Thomas
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hain, Peter
Wray, Jimmy


Haynes, Frank
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia



Hinchliffe, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Home Robertson, John
Mr. Jimmy Hood.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Teachers' Pay and Conditions

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move,
That the draft Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 9th May, be approved.
The order will give effect to the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document 1991. Once the House has given effect to the order, as I hope that it will, local education authorities and governors of grant-maintained schools will be required to pay teachers at the new rates.
All this goes back to September last year, when my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State asked the interim advisory committee to advise on teachers' pay in 1991–92. He asked it to look at ways of further increasing flexibility within the pay system in order to improve recruitment and retention—paying particular attention to measures to help LEAs tackle teacher shortages in key subjects or in particular areas such as London—and to reward excellence in classroom teaching. He also asked it to review the pay of heads and deputies.
The committee carried out its remit admirably, and produced the fourth in what has been a series of excellent reports. It recommended a number of improvements to extend local discretion and flexibility. The report emphasised the importance of using pay flexibilities imaginatively and purposefully to meet local priorities, to provide an attractive career structure, to reward responsibility and good performance and to attract high quality entrants to the profession.
I received the report on 18 January, and announced on 31 January that I proposed to accept its recommendations but to stage their introduction in the same way as for the review body groups that the Government were considering at the same time. I explained that, in view of the size of the proposed pay award, and for wider economic reasons, the recommendations would be implemented in full only by 1 December 1991. That meant that teachers would receive equal treatment with the groups—such as the clinical professions covered by the review bodies that had reported at the same time.
The Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 requires consultation with interested parties before the proposals can be implemented. My ministerial colleagues and I carried out those consultations. I carefully considered the points that were made by teachers' unions and employers both in meetings and in writing. I have concluded, however, that the Government proposal to accept the recommendations in full, but to stage their introduction in the period up to 1 December, should be given effect.
Implementation of the committee's recommendations will mean substantial rises for all teachers, particularly heads, deputy heads and teachers who have more responsibility. When fully implemented, the heads' and deputies' pay spine will increase by 12.75 per cent., and all ranges on that spine will be extended by two points. The standard scale for classroom teachers will increase by 9.5 per cent., and incremental enhancements will be uprated by a similar amount. London allowances and the discretionary inner London supplement will increase by 9.38 per cent., backdated to 1 July 1990.
In addition to those recommendations, which we have accepted, the interim advisory committee reaffirmed its belief that incentive allowances have a key role to play in

recruiting, retaining and motivating teachers. It therefore recommended a 30 per cent. increase in the value of the five rates of allowance—a substantial increase indeed—taking the value of the highest incentive allowance to more than £7,100. It also proposed that an extra 9,100 incentive allowances should be introduced in the 1991–92 academic year, bringing the total number of allowances in primary and secondary schools to almost 200,000.
In making its generous recommendations, the committee rightly drew particular attention to the importance of awarding more incentive allowances to teachers in smaller primary schools, who feel that they have not been properly treated in the past.
I am pleased that in all its generous recommendations the IAC drew particular attention to the importance of rewarding good classroom performance. Compared with others, the teacher who dedicates himself or herself to a lifelong career in teaching, and who discovers that his or her gifts lie in teaching children in classrooms in an inspirational way, has been least well treated in our pay arrangements.
The IAC recommended that from 1 September discretionary scale points above the standard scale should be awarded solely against the criterion of a teacher's performance across all aspects of their professional duties, having particular regard to their classroom teaching. The upper limit of the discretionary scale will rise to £3,000. Most important, the discretion to put in place additional scale points will be devolved to the governing bodies of schools with delegated budgets. Some governing bodies who wanted to use the discretionary scale points but found that, for some reason, their local authority discouraged them from doing so will now be able to reward their staff appropriately.
In calculating the size and deployment of education spending in 1991–92, the Government assumed that about £150 million will be available to be spent on those and other new pay discretions. I hope, therefore, that governing bodies and local education authorities will use them to the full to motivate their teachers and to reward achievement, particular effort and good classroom performance.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on accepting the important additions to the scale, but how will good performance in the classroom be measured? Will it be measured independently of school authorities to ensure that there is no favouritism from the head teacher?

Mr. Clarke: In all jobs where an element of pay is based on performance somebody has to judge the performance. A head teacher must have some authority, and we are giving additional responsibility to school governors. I accept that that is a big move, but I see no reason why a good governing body, which will soon have the results of the appraisal arrangements that we have introduced, should not consult head teachers and make its own judgment about a particularly valued member of staff who, according to all the information available, is an effective classroom teacher. When one tries to move over in the public sector to performance-related payments, it is a great mistake to get too bogged down in all the arguments about setting up great institutional arrangements, endless appeals, and so on, which tend to come into public sector debates. In most walks of life, people's performance in


their jobs in judged by those to whom they are responsible. I see no reason why most heads and most governors should not be given that responsibility.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There is a problem in state schools, such as in my constituency, where teachers remain on the staff for some years. Many are at the top of the scale and, under the present funding arrangements, they are finding life difficult. I understood from my right hon. and learned Friend's office that this matter was under consideration. May I take it that that is still the case?

Mr. Clarke: We are moving from a system under which everyone was tied to the scale and, once one reached the top, no additional payments were available. I am glad to say that one of the most effective results of having had an advisory committee for the past two or three years has been the move to incentive allowances, discretionary scale payments, and so on. I do not approve of the traditional trade union view of public sector pay, whereby one moves in increments according to years of service, stops, and waits to move on. When one concentrates on good performance, someone must judge that performance. I see no reason why that should not be the head teacher and the governors.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that even in Cabinet kissing goes by favour? Schools do not differ from any other organisation in that sense. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told us that he wants to give greater freedom to good governors. What will happen if there is a bad head and a bad governor and decisions are taken on this highly partial basis?

Mr. Clarke: I do not believe that one can pay a professional on the basis that no one should be allowed to judge his or her performance. We now require much greater exercise of responsibility by the governing body and head teachers. I am not against giving them the authority to contemplate rewarding good classroom performance or someone who carries particularly heavy responsibility. In recruiting their staff, they must also have regard to the need to recruit someone with specialist skills in a subject where they cannot otherwise get someone of the right quality. There are parts of the country where they must have regard to the cost of getting a good teacher, given the local labour market. We have been building those essential flexibilities into the system for the past three or four years.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Patrick Cormack: rose—

Mr. Clarke: We have agreed that this should be a fairly short debate. I shall move around and give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack).

Mr. Cormack: I am grateful to my right hon and learned Friend. I think that I am on the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). With great respect, my right hon. and learned Friend missed the point. There are a number of schools where many teachers have been on the staff for many years and therefore, rightly, are at the top of the scale. The new funding system militates against those

schools, which are faced with a difficult dilemma: either they shed people who have served faithfully and well for many years or they face the fact that their schools are in jeopardy. Will my right hon. and learned Friend address that point?

Mr. Clarke: I shall do so, if you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as it does not have much to do with the order. The point now being raised relates to the effect of local management of schools where a local authority decides on an objective formula by which it distributes money to the schools in its area. The argument is that the formula is based on pupils and not on the make-up of the staff and that some schools find that their staff costs are high because all their teachers are at the top of the scale.
It is important to have a formula distribution of the money based on pupils and that we do not just accept the existing costs of schools. I agree that when one starts doing that, anomalies of the kind that I described are revealed. Usually, for the first time, people realise the funding variations between schools which occurred in the past and which no one previously noticed. One may find that in the past a school had particularly heavy staff costs and that such costs will take a high proportion of its former allocation. I agree that difficult decisions will eventually have to be taken. The school must decide whether it can justify spending such a high proportion of its allocation on staff—

Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Clarke: Let me answer before giving way again. Some schools have difficult choices to make about the value of experienced staff vis-a-vis costs. Of course other schools gain because they discover that they have been underfunded in the past. When money is distributed fairly by formula, one or two schools will find that they are better financed than some of their neighbours and may decide to release a teacher. If he is a good teacher, many other schools with money to spare will find the addition of an experienced member of staff to their payroll worth while.
We should not shrink from adopting a formula for the allocation of funds based on the number of pupils because it means that the future growth of money depends on the ability of a school to attract funds. The formula must be based on the number of pupils rather than on the salary scale or the historic staff costs of the school. However, this off-the-cuff discussion on local management of schools has nothing whatever to do with the order.

Mr. Allason: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The Secretary of State is quite right. I was rather anxious about the fact that we seem to be straying from the order.

Mr. Allason: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that primary schools are in a particularly difficult position? Does he also accept that it is tempting for governors to release a highly paid and experienced teacher at the top of the salary scale and replace him with two inexperienced teachers?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend about smaller schools in which it is difficult to decide whether to have three or four teachers. The scheme's transitional arrangements will ease that difficulty. It is open to each


county council to decide how to draw up a formula for distributing the money, and each council will decide how to give additional weight to pupil numbers in small schools. In a county such as the one that my hon. Friend helps to represent there are many rural schools and it will be for the county council to decide how heavily to weight the distribution of funds in favour of small primary schools so as to avoid the difficulties that my hon. Friend describes.
The order contributes to a solution of the problems in that it gives generous pay increases to all teachers and extends yet further the ability of governing bodies with spare money in their budgets to use incentive allowances and discretionary scale payments to reward teachers for good performance, whether or not they are at the top of the scale. We have added to the standard spending assessments for local authorities the extra resources that they require to meet these large increases in future salaries. However, the problems of distribution remain and are not affected by the order.
The outside world and most teachers will want to know exactly what the order means in terms of teachers' pay. There is widespread public concern about teachers' pay and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have repeatedly expressed the sentiment of our right hon. and hon. Friends that good teachers must be properly rewarded if we are to have a good education system.
These increases in salary points and allowances mean that by December the maximum possible salary for a classroom teacher will be almost £28,000, or more than £30,000 in inner London. That is an increase of more than £4,000 on the maximum that a classroom teacher could have earned before. The average classroom teacher will earn more than £17,000, which is an increase of almost 11 per cent. Average earnings for a primary school teacher at the top of the standard scale will be some £18,300. For a secondary school teacher at the top of the scale the average salary will be about £20,200, which is £2,700 above the scale maximum of £17,500. People will say that that is not excessive pay for teachers. I do not think that there is widespread understanding of the fact that that is the pay level to which they have been moved during the lifetime of this Government—especially by these latest increases.
I disapprove of the practice—although I understand it—followed by teachers unions of never using the figures that I have just given. Like all good trade unionists I have ever encountered, they use the scale as though it bore some direct relation to earnings. The NUT frequently implies that £17,500 is the most that an average classroom teacher can hope to earn. It is using the value of the top point of the scale. I have touched on the generosity and the extension of the incentive allowance and discretionary scale payments, so that the NUT figures bear no relation to what teachers earn "on the ground"—and that can be extremely misleading for those considering entering the profession.
The scale figure takes no account of incentive allowances, despite the fact that this September the Government's plans assume that some 50 per cent of primary teachers and 70 per cent of all secondary teachers will receive allowances, and that their value will rise by 30 per cent. The IAC itself pointed out that the effect of its recommendations will mean that the average earnings for

a primary school teacher at the top of the standard scale would be about £18,300 and for a secondary school teacher at the top of the scale would be about £20,200. It urged all concerned to give these figures wide circulation and to dispel the mistaken impression that the top of the standard scale is the most that classroom teachers can earn. Even these figures take no account of discretionary scale points which can be awarded by LEAs and governing bodies to teachers on the top of the scale—as I said when I originally misunderstood the interruption by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman)
These extra payments at the top of the scale can be very substantial. Discretionary scale points, which are to be awarded on the basis of good performance, can add up to £2,000 to a teacher's salary, and this will rise to £3,000 in September. The value of incentive allowances has increased dramatically since they were introduced in 1987—in the case of the A allowance by nearly 150 per cent. From 1 December the E allowance will be worth more than £7,000 per year. Used imaginatively, these allowances can be a very powerful recruitment and retention incentive, and a substantial reward for excellence in the classroom.
I believe that this is a generous package. It has been much criticised to me privately, not so much by teachers complaining about its adequacy as by people in other walks of life complaining about how the Government can give these high increases in salary to public sector employees at a time of recession. I make no apologies for doing so. The demands that we are making of teachers and the commitment that we are giving to improving educational standards require that we motivate the best of our teachers and reward them properly. By any standards, these will be exceptional pay increases compared with any that those in other walks of life may expect in the coming year—and rightly so.
The IAC also stressed the importance of effective, positive management by heads and deputies, and of seizing the opportunities provided by the local management of schools. I am sure that it is right to do so. I have been encouraged by the committee's comments about the changes that it observed in schools which have delegated budgets under LMS arrangements. The committee said that it saw indications of an increase in morale among teachers, partly as a result of the new freedoms available under LMS. It noted in its report that, in schools where LMS was in place,
the freedom associated with delegated budgeting was warmly welcomed, and was being used by the head teacher to achieve ends which benefited teachers and pupils: employing additional non-teaching staff to relieve teachers of clerical and other time-consuming tasks; ensuring adequate cover with supply teachers; and undertaking programmes of redecoration and minor building works".
I quote that endorsement by an independent body of the move to LMS, which has been such a widespread success in this country. The Opposition parties now support LMS, but it has been their custom in the past to defend the centralisation of most budgeting and control in the hands of local authorities. I see the Opposition spokesmen shaking their heads at that—I am sure that they now warmly endorse our LMS proposals.
I well understand that head teachers and deputies increasingly have heavy responsibilities being loaded upon them by the Government's reforms. The IAC's recommendations mean that the head teacher of a large


secondary school outside London will be able to earn £47,000 or more each year. The head of a typical primary school will receive almost £2,400 extra, taking his or her pay to £23,500 each year. The head of a typical secondary school will see his or her pay rise by more than £3,600 to more than £32,000.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I think that they can earn more than that.

Mr. Clarke: I think that the highest paid head teacher that I have ever heard of in the state sector is earning £55,000 each year.
Those are responsible positions and they deserve responsible rewards. It should be an attraction to those contemplating teaching to realise that rewards of that kind are now available in the profession.
The changes recommended by the committee and accepted by the Government will help to recruit, retain and motivate sufficient teachers of the quality that the country needs. They give governing bodies and local education authorities more discretion to make selective payments in the light of local circumstances. They will greatly increase the capacity for local management to manage their own schools.
As the House is aware, the Government's intention is that next year's pay settlement should be determined by an independent review body. We have defeated the Labour party's opposition to that and the Bill is now in another place. This is therefore the right time to pay tribute to the work of the IAC during the past four years. Its clear analyses and constructive recommendations for change have won support across a broad spectrum of opinion. The IAC's reports have provided an admirable basis for the future development of the teachers' pay structure and, by highlighting and encouraging teacher professionalism, have played an important part in preparing the way for the award to teachers of review body status that we now propose.
The recommendations of the IAC for 1991–92 are embodied in the order which is needed to ensure that teachers receive their pay increases. If the House by any chance votes against it, all the pay increases that I have described will not normally be payable for the year ahead. On that ground, because I approve strongly of the increases, I commend the order to the House and ask that it be approved.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I agree with one or two of the comments made by the Secretary of State, but I preface my remarks by offering to the House the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). He has given his apologies to the Secretary of State, but he would like to give them to the House as well. Unfortunately, he cannot be with us tonight, for good reasons.
I agree with the Secretary of State's final comments in praise of the work of the IAC. It is appropriate for the House to thank all those who have been involved in the work of the IAC for their reports and for the analysis and information contained in them. There has been some disagreement among those directly affected in terms of the mechanism—there was a strong argument repeated in the IAC final report in favour of the restoration of collective bargaining and that was the view among teachers and

teachers' organisations—but it is to the IAC's credit that it has succeeded in winning the confidence of those who may well have been opposed to the mechanism. It is of even greater credit to work on that basis and gain the support of one's opponents. We should like to put on the record the Opposition's thanks to those directly involved in the IAC and its work.

Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman will not vote against it, will he?

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman asks that more with public transport in mind than teachers' pay, but I shall return to that point.
We strongly agree with some areas of the report that I shall highlight. First, the report makes a strong case, as I think the Secretary of State recognised, for teacher appraisal. That is important in terms of professional development. If we are to improve the overall performance of education, it is crucial to have a teacher force which has self-confidence and the ability to build on its strengths and to remove the weaknesses that may exist in its performance.
As somebody who taught for a number of years in a university, I think that the process of appraisal may also be appropriate to higher education and teacher performance there. Having said that, I recognise that I was one of the best teachers in the institution and, therefore, had no need of appraisal! I understand, however, that there was a strong objective case for appraisal.
The Opposition agree strongly with the principle of appraisal, but we share the disappointment that was expressed implicitly in the report that the Government are not making available for that process the money that has been considered necessary, especially for training. There is a substantial task, and I think that the Government could have made more resources available. If they had done so, there would be more confidence in the system of appraisal that has been adopted and in the objectivity of that system.
We agree with the IAC's report on local pay bargaining. Those who have followed the debates on school teachers' pay will understand that the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill—the No. 1 Bill—contained support for the possibility that individual schools and local education authorities should be able to opt out of national procedures. However, the report states extremely effectively that there is substantial flexibility in the system already and that there is no need for the opt-out that was proposed in the Bill. If the Government listened to the committee and dropped the proposal from the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill, I am glad that they did so.
We approve of the IAC's comments on non-contact hours for primary school teachers. That raises an issue that the Government need to consider, and it was addressed in the annual reports of Her Majesty's inspectorate this year and last year. Primary school teachers have been subjected to extensive change and an increase in stress over the past two or three years. The process of introducing the national curriculum has been a greater burden on primary schools, I think, than on schools in the secondary sector. The notions of introducing primary science and primary technology are real changes on which we must build. They introduce an area of real development. It is important, however, to understand that if a primary school teacher is to deliver at the level that we would wish, there is a strong


argument for non-contact hours. That is a recommendation of the IAC's report, and of the annual report of Her Majesty's inspectorate. It would be useful if the Government accepted the need to take up the recommendation.
We agree with the IAC's general comments about teachers, and it is worth putting them on the record again. The committee makes a strong report that in the schools that its representatives visited it was found that teachers were working hard, that they were performing well and that they were committed to the system and the children they were teaching. It is worthwhile always to state that part of the report and to get it on the record.
Perhaps the crucial issue is whether the IAC has raised the profile and status of teaching and its professionalism over the years. It is sad to find at paragraph 3·44 of its report the following comment:
Pay continues to be a key factor in determining morale. Teachers told us that although their starting salaries have been comparable with those of their contemporaries who graduated with them, in a very few years the salary gap had widened. Few teachers had expected that their chosen profession would bring the financial rewards which are available in other sectors of the economy. Many commented on the satisfaction teaching brought them, but there were still bills to be paid.
The paragraph ended:
Some teachers had second jobs in order to make ends meet.

Mr. Hawkins: On £28,000 a year.

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman talks about £28,000 a year. As the Secretary of State said, the average salary is £17,000.
We must consider the problem of teachers' salaries when they are five years into teaching. It is important that that is considered by the review body that deals with next year's pay settlement. There is a haemorrhage from the profession of those who are in their first five years. The IAC has found that at that point of comparability there is a disparity between teaching and other professions. Teaching looks less attractive than other professions. If the Secretary of State is right—and I believe that he is—to say that if we are to have a highly qualified and highly motivated teaching profession, it must have salaries commensurate with—

Mrs. Dunwoody: rose—

Mr. Peter Thurnham: rose—

Mr. Fatchett: It is important that we have a salary scale at a career point that is attractive and which relates to that of other professions. The interim advisory committee has not yet dealt sufficiently with that problem. I shall make one further point before giving way to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and to the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham).
The hon. Members for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) mentioned the local management of schools, which is important. One way to improve the career prospects of individual teachers is to use the incentive allowance and the discretionary payments. There is a genuine problem for those schools that have a particular difficulty with their budgets. Both hon. Members were right, and the Secretary of State did

not deal adequately with that issue. If the budget is tight, however good the teacher it will be impossible to pay him the incentive allowance or the discretionary award.

Mrs. Dunwoody: In that case, what advice would my hon. Friend give to those teachers who have excellent, proven records and very good qualifications but who, in their early 50s, are being made redundant merely because schools cannot afford them? That is not happening just once—it is happening across the country. There is a haemorrhage of graduate teachers at the top of the scale.

Mr. Hawkins: rose—

Mrs. Dunwoody: What about the formula?

Mr. Fatchett: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, and I also heard the sedentary intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich who makes an important point. There is a problem. The hon. Member for High Peak agreed by saying that some teachers are just too expensive for a particular school and are therefore faced with the threat of compulsory redundancy.

Mr. Hawkins: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will also hear what I have to say. If the simplistic and absurd formula, which is currently used for the costing of schools, used the average cost of a teacher instead of the actual cost of a teacher, the cost would average out over the nation—or the county —as a whole. There would not then be the problem of an individual school having—as some small schools in my constituency have—four senior teachers who are too expensive because they are older, higher up the scale or have merit awards. But the schools have to shed teachers and have large classes solely because the formula stupidly builds in the actual, rather than the average, cost of a teacher.

Mr. Fatchett: Let me answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich by saying that the hon. Member for High Peak got it the wrong way round, although the principle behind what he said was absolutely correct. The formula should involve average teacher salaries rather than actual teacher salaries.

Mr. Hawkins: That was what I thought I said.

Mr. Fatchett: I know what the hon. Gentleman meant and I appreciate the point that he was making. My advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich is that the formula for local management of schools needs to be changed. Otherwise, there will be the continued nonsense that senior, well-respected, important members of staff will be penalised and, in some cases, threatened with redundancy. That does not make sense—

Mrs. Dunwoody: They are being made redundant.

Mr. Fatchett: —and are being made redundant. I accept that, which is why there is a need for additional funding, but also for a change in the formula. I hope that the Secretary of State will listen not just to the representations from the Opposition, but to those being made forcefully by Conservative Members. The formula must be changed.

Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman talks about the importance of incentives for teachers, but what incentive would there be for a head teacher who found his pay slashed under Labour's plans to increase the top rate of tax?

Mr. Fatchett: I shall ignore the hon. Gentleman's point—

Mr. Neil Hamilton: It is true.

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) is well suited to the role of Whip because silence is the best virtue for him.
It would be more useful to move the debate in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, and by the hon. Members for High Peak and for Lancaster. We need to reconsider the formula so that teachers are not penalised in the way that we have discussed. I was trying to make the point to the Secretary of State that it is no good saying that, within the system, we can top up the standard scale for teachers by incentive allowances and discretionary payments if the money is not there and the school is under financial pressure.
There seems to be a long-term and worrying pattern. Post-Houghton and post-Clegg, we had substantial immediate increases. In both cases, there was then a deterioration in the real level of teachers' pay. Teachers moved down the pay and salaries ladder. I fear that the same process has happened under the interim advisory committee. There has been, we accept, a large initial increase—the Baker increase, if I may call it that—but in subsequent years there has been a movement down the salary ladder. That may send a signal to teachers that the profession has occasional good years, but then a number of lean years. We need an approach to teachers' pay that gives the impression, year after year, that teachers are valued and important.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am one of the hon. Members who were enthusiastic about the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill which will bring in a pay review body for teachers. The Opposition's position was not clear. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that a new teachers' pay review body will help to overcome the very problem which he has just described?

Mr. Fatchett: That depends on the conditions under which that pay review body works. If the pay review body is totally free and is able to come up with the recommendations that, I suspect, the hon. Gentleman supports, it may work in that way. However, the evidence on the face of the Bill is that conditions are attached to the pay review body which may stop it working in the way to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Does my hon. Friend agree that this evening we have heard the Secretary of State give the reason why the pay review body will be no different from the interim advisory committee? The powers that the Secretary of State has used are identical to the powers that he will be able to use for the pay review body. The interim advisory committee recommended an increase that the Secretary of State decided to phase in. The settlement has not been implemented in one go. The Secretary of State will be able to do the same to the pay review body, so his powers will override the pay review body and he will be able to implement what he thinks fit.

Mr. Fatchett: As always, my hon. Friend makes a constructive intervention. He takes me on to the next part of my speech and he has also answered the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson). The reason why we

shall vote against the order tonight is that the interim advisory committee's report was changed in one key area —the phasing of the increase. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, that is an element of the conditions in the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill. It is important and will be noted by teachers that this year's interim advisory committee report's recommendations have been phased. There is an inconsistency in that position.
It does not help teacher morale, recruitment and retention for a so-called "independent" body to come forward with a set of recommendations and then for the Secretary of State with a stroke of a pen to change those recommendations. There is a deeper inconsistency which teachers will find worrying and which they will judge alongside the proposal for a pay review body. Two weeks ago, we were told by the Secretary of State that this year's standard spending assessments for local government were sufficient to cover an increase for teachers in the interquartile range—the area in which the interim advisory committee made its recommendations. The committee's recommendations were, exactly as asked, within the interquartile range of non-manual increases. The committee suggested a formula that meant that the implementation costs for 1991–92 were within the limit, yet again, of the interquartile non-manual range of salary increases.
The interim advisory committee delivered what the Secretary of State asked and the right hon. and learned Gentleman claims that the standard spending assessments are sufficient and that local government has the money to pay for the increase.
The two sides of the equation are that, according to the Secretary of State, local government has the resources and the interim advisory committee is carrying out its remit according to the terms set out by the Secretary of State. Having got both sides of the equation, the Secretary of State then decided that the teachers' salary increase should be phased. There is no justification for that in terms of the positions taken previously in relation to both local government and the interim advisory committee. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) was making and it answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Norwich, North.
The signal going out to teachers is that a so-called "independent" body has produced a set of recommendations that it considers important for teacher morale, recruitment and retention, yet the Secretary of State has overturned those recommendations. Those are the conditions to which we referred during debates on the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill, and they are conditions about which teachers will be extremely worried. It is no good the Secretary of State saying that there is an independent body if, when it reports, the right hon. Gentleman overturns its report. That does not build confidence in the system. That is why we shall vote against the order. It undermines the work of the interim advisory committee, gives too much power to the Secretary of Stale to operate it illogically, and is a bad signal for the future and for the pay review body.

Mr. Allason: Is the hon. Gentleman giving the commitment that any future Labour Government would accept the full recommendations of the interim advisory committee whatever the cost to the Exchequer?

Mr. Fatchett: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to the argument. I was saying that there will not be an interim advisory committee in the future—that much we do know. There will be different machinery. I also said—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take this point on board—that there is an inconsistency in that, according to the Government, the standard spending assessments are so just that local government can pay an

increase in the interquartile range. The interim advisory committee's recommendations fall exactly within the interquartile range and were deliberately made to do so.
My argument is that the interim advisory committee carried out its remit, but, at a later stage and with a stroke of a pen, the Government changed the way in which that increase will be implemented. That is our argument. This is an important matter for teachers and a worrying backcloth for them. That is why we shall vote against the order.

Mr. George Walden: I admit to being beguiled by the beginning of the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) because it reminded me of being slapped in the face by one of the perfumed, warm towels that are handed out by air hostesses. I thought that he was going to go all the way and agree with the Government, but he ended by saying that he would oppose the order on what seemed entirely spurious grounds. Although he brushed aside an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) about the cost of Labour's proposals, my hon. Friend asked an extremely pertinent and germane question.
Although the hon. Gentleman opposes the phasing of the increase, it would be interesting to calculate the relative loss to individual teachers, especially those on the middle and upper scales, of his Front Bench's proposals to tax them at penal levels against the admitted but slight loss of phasing the increase. It was wrong and disingenuous of the hon. Gentleman to brush aside that important intervention about the penal tax rates that would be imposed on teachers by a putative Labour Government.

Mr. Steinberg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Walden: I have hardly started. Let me continue for a while.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State struck the right note in introducing the order. These considerable increases in pay for teachers are balanced, rightly, by greater performance requirements. That seems the essential philosophy for the future. Admittedly, it has taken some time for us to work towards the increases. I have made no secret of my view that we should go further, in terms of rewards for teachers, stricter requirements and what I would call quality control for teachers.
I should like to draw attention to a facet of this discussion which is shied away from too often in public —the sex of teachers. It seems entirely abnormal that about 90 per cent. of teachers in primary schools and 70 or 75 per cent. of all teachers are of the female sex. However fashionable and vulgar views one may adopt on this subject—politically correct, they call it in America—children have a right to expect a reasonable balance between the sexes in the classroom. For goodness sake, families consist of a mixture of men and women. Why should not schools have a better balance?
The sex of teachers is related to the subject that we are discussing because teaching has become a female-dominated profession.

Mr. Hawkins: It is regarded as a second income.

Mr. Walden: The profession is dominated by women partly because, as my hon. Friend says, it is often treated as not a serious profession but a second income by women who statistically have the lowest attainments in A levels.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Walden: That is why teaching has become a semi-pauperised and proletarianised profession. At this point, out of all gallantry, I must give way to the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that somewhat elephantine response. Is it the hon. Gentleman's

view that what is important is not that people should have the best teachers but that they should have those who are defined by gender? Was he brought up in the state system, which is full of truly excellent teachers of either sex? Does he send his own children to state schools, or does he send them only to places where there is sex discrimination and, therefore, only men to teach them?

Mr. Walden: I am genuinely sorry to hear that intervention. It is of a paltry and old-fashioned nature. To reply to the hon. Lady's question, yes, I grew up in the state sector. Also, I would not dream of sending my own children into the state sector in the area in which I live because I disapprove of the entire philosophy of teaching which reigns there. I would do anything in my power, and I spend large amounts of money at enormous personal cost, to escape from the state sector. I resent that, because in other more advanced European countries the state sector is far superior to ours, partly because it does not follow the philosophy favoured by the hon. Lady's party —but I shall not go into that.
I insist on the point about the sex of teachers. The hon. Lady's intervention was tiresomely fashionable. I am talking in the sense in which ordinary people understand these matters. It seems abnormal that there should be schools, as there are in my constituency, where there is not one male teacher. That is wrong.
I shall stop now because I want to leave hon. Members on both sides time to speak. My remarks about the sex of teachers are relevant because one effect of the Government's enlightened view of teachers' pay is that it will in the future, particularly after the pay review body is introduced, lead to a greater proportion of men in the profession so that we have a more balanced teaching force and teaching is seen not as a second income but as an honourable profession for all people with the requisite intellectual and teaching qualifications, be they men or women.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am at a loss to speak following that extraordinarily bigoted and unimaginative speech. We poor women who have undertaken dreadful jobs such as teaching, nursing and being MPs are frequently overwhelmed by the superior intellects represented by the male sex, and obviously we should be replaced in the schools and hospital system because we are not capable of coping.
I resent the order because a number of members of my family have given their whole lives to teaching, are extremely well qualified and have always considered that caring about what happened to the children and the quality of the work done in the classroom was important. Because I care so much about this issue, I circulated all the schools in my constituency with a questionnaire connected directly to what was happening under the local management of schools and in terms of pay and conditions.
For the Secretary of State to make such remarks about an order which, frankly, will not deal with the real problems of state education was little short of an insult to people who have given their lives to the teaching profession. What is happening in the state system today is clear. When people are properly qualified, are at the top of their scales and are in schools in which there is considerable pressure on budgets, they are being made


redundant. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not aware of that, I am even more horrified than I would be in normal circumstances.
The quality of state education, which is important to 90 per cent. of the country's children, should be primary. We should not have to sit here listening to people who themselves do not send their children to the state system telling us that we can experiment anywhere we like. I find that offensive and unacceptable. I shall vote against the order with great pleasure, not because it will produce flexibility, not because it recognises the ability of those in the state system who need special payment for their abilities and qualifications, but because it is yet another cynical gesture which will not alter the terms and conditions of those who are important, will not find money for the state system to do those things that are regarded as important, but because it will simply contribute to the extraordinary gesture politics to which we listened from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), who supposedly contributed to the debate.

Mr. James Pawsey: I approach the debate with a sense of sadness because it is the last in the present series of debates. I feel almost nostalgic, especially as I read the Official Reports of previous debates. They included contributions by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), but I shall not embarrass him by quoting them.
The interim advisory committee is about to be overtaken by the School Teachers Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill. That committee has served the nation and its teachers well. I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Leeds, Central join in thanking it for its excellent work over a number of years, and I echo their words.
That committee has helped teachers, and it is not without significance that since April 1987 their pay has increased in cash terms by 40·2 per cent. But there is a better, albeit unusual, yardstick to measure the effectiveness of the work of that committee—the number of strikes by teachers and ancillary helpers. In the past three years, under the interim advisory committee, some 60,000 days were lost by teachers and helpers. That is to be compared with 1985, when in just one year no fewer than 851,000 days were lost through strikes. That shows the committee's effectiveness.
It is a truism that the education of the nation's children is of critical importance to the nation's well-being. Teachers' pay is important, and is part of that process. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that the majority of the nation's teachers are dedicated not just to their profession but to the children in their charge.
If there is a small minority who bring the profession into disrepute, they are sometimes helped by certain local authorities. In Lambeth, for example, we have witnessed the extraordinary situation whereby heads have found it necessary to appeal to the Department of Education and Science for help if the educational process is not to break down. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) was hinting at that when he described the situation in the district where his children

should be educated, but which is in such poor shape that he is compelled to send them elsewhere. It is an appalling commentary on what occurs in some of our local education authorities that some of them have to approach the DES for advice.
One way in which parents in Lambeth can overcome the problem confronting them is to consider grant-maintained status for their children's schools, which will give them an opportunity to cut the noose which secures them to the local authority.
The School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill will enhance teachers' status. It will take over from the IAC, and will introduce a review body. It is interesting to draw a comparison with the arrangement that exists for nurses. I refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson). Since the inception of the nurses' review body six years ago, nurses' pay has increased by 63 per cent.—22 per cent. more than inflation. That answers the hon. Member for Leeds, Central. The precedent established by the nurses' review body is a good one for teachers. The increase in nurses' pay was not achieved at the cost of jobs in that profession. Over the same period, the number of nurses increased.
This year, teachers' pay will increase by 9·8 per cent., at a time when inflation is less than 6 per cent. and falling. The IAC increase will give the average classroom teacher earnings of around £17,000 a year. Average earnings together with the incentive allowance will, in the case of a secondary teacher on the top point of the scale, provide remuneration of £20,300 a year. The relevant figure for primary school teachers at the top point of the scale will be £18,300.
Seventy per cent. of secondary school teachers, and 50 per cent. of primary school teachers, are at the top of their scales. Those figures will help recruitment to the profession. Entries to teacher training colleges are already at their highest level since 1972, and there is improved recruitment in the sciences, physics, chemistry and biology.
Earlier, I said that the majority of teachers are dedicated to their profession and to the children in their charge. That dedication, and the success that those teachers enjoy, is emphasised by the increase in the number of pupils entering higher education. In 1980, one in eight of the target group went into higher education. In those days, higher education could truly be called elitist but the Government have remedied that. This year, one in five of the target group are in advanced education. That figure will improve to one in four by the year 2000. The fact that there are well over a million students in our colleges and universities this year underlines, as nothing else can, how much standards of education have improved under the Government. Much of the credit for that improvement must go to teachers, but it will be readily understood that the increase in student numbers is based on, and must depend on, the number of young people who obtain good A-level results.
Although the improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio —now 17 to one—has helped, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State can take considerable credit for the substantial increase in funding this year. Spending on education has risen by 16 per cent. this year to £17·5 billion. As a percentage of gross national product, we now spend more on education than any of our principal competitors.
The answer to a parliamentary question of mine shows that, in 1986, total public expenditure on education was 4·9 per cent. of GNP in the United Kingdom, 4·7 per cent. in the United States, 4·4 per cent. in Japan, and 4·4 per cent. in the then West Germany.

Mr. Ralph Howell: I find my hon. Friend's arguments difficult to follow. I thought that we were trying to contain inflation, but he says that we are spending more and have more teachers. Is my hon. Friend aware that we have 73,000 more teachers and 750,000 fewer pupils than in 1970? How does he square that up?

Mr. Pawsey: The answer to my hon. Friend's question —he is truly a good friend of mine—is the improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio. I welcome that improvement and am anxious to see increased spending on education. 1 want more and better paid teachers, which is one of the reasons why I shall support the order.
Pay is important, but it is far from being everything. Teachers are sometimes browned off with the speed and scope of reforms. Most of them accept that reform is necessary, but many classroom teachers have a mountain of paper to climb. The forms, questionnaires, guides, documents and advice that pour into the nation's schools have become a torrent, coming from the Department of Education and Science, local authorities and quangos.
The headmaster of one of my middle schools today described to me with feeling the amount of paper that descends on classroom teachers. He told me that his teachers now spend three to four hours every week more than the mandatory 1,265 hours doing paper work. The deluge of paper is more than simply a passing distraction —it saps energy and enthusiasm and it demotivates.
We need to get teachers in front of the class, doing the job they are paid to do, but the red tape traps and suffocates so I should appreciate a cut in that. I shall support the order.

Mr. Mike Carr: I am pleased to note that this is the last motion that the Secretary of State will move under the present system—that is, after receiving advice from the interim advisory committee. Few teachers will mourn the passing of that committee.
Last year, in a parallel debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) mentioned the loss of morale in the teaching profession. Morale remains low. Many teachers—while welcoming the setting up of an independent review body to recommend future pay awards —will be waiting to see how that works in practice, and whether the Government's stated intention to reward them appropriately becomes a reality.
The reality of this year's pay award is yet another phased increase. The full implementation of the IAC recommendations was estimated to increase the teachers' pay bill by 11·3 per cent. By paying the award in two stages, the first on 1 April and the second on 1 December, the Government have reduced the cost to 8·4 per cent. for 1991–92. That hardly sounds like a full acceptance of the IAC recommendations.
Talk of global percentages, however, tells us nothing about how teachers feel. Many teachers see the phasing as proof that the Government prefer playing with figures to paying teachers properly. In many schools, local management of schools means that salary budgets are

funded on the basis of average teacher salaries rather than that of actual salary costs. When that is taken into account, the picture becomes very depressing.
Local authority employers have not the money to meet their costs. In an attempt to balance their budgets, school governing budgets and local education authorities are having to make teachers redundant to pay others the recommended increase. It is little wonder that teacher morale remains low.
How does the Government's decision to phase the award affect teachers? For eight months, teachers on the main standard scale will receive no more than a 7·5 per cent. increase. They will feel that they have done poorly when they compare themselves with private-sector employees. From December, standard-scale teachers will receive the remaining 2·5 per cent. of their increase. Over 1991–92 as a whole, the standard-scale teacher—that is, the classroom teacher, the backbone of the profession—who continues to serve our children well will receive only 8·19 per cent. more than he or she was paid the previous year.
Many of my friends are teachers. I visit many schools in my constituency, and talk to many teachers there. They have tackled all the Government's reforms in recent years, and have tried to make them work in the children's interests; they have improved the rate of public examination passes; many have worked in schools with poor standards of repair and a lack of material resources. The Government, however, have failed to reward standard-scale teachers properly, and in doing so have effectively told them, "We will pay you as little as we can get away with paying."
Let me mark the passing of the IAC by saying that I hope that this is the last time that we shall see our teachers and our children short-changed, and the last time that local education authorities and schools will have to meet bills without having the money to do so. I hope; but I fear that my hopes will not be realised.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 127.

Division No. 179]
[11.23 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Butcher, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Butler, Chris


Allason, Rupert
Butterfill, John


Alton, David
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Amess, David
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Amos, Alan
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arbuthnot, James
Carr, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Carttiss, Michael


Ashby, David
Cash, William


Atkins, Robert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkinson, David
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Chope, Christopher


Beith, A. J.
Churchill, Mr


Bellingham, Henry
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bendall, Vivian
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Conway, Derek


Bevan, David Gilroy
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Boswell, Tim
Cormack, Patrick


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Couchman, James


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Cran, James


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Brazier, Julian
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Day, Stephen


Burns, Simon
Dickens, Geoffrey


Burt, Alistair
Dorrell, Stephen






Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Dover, Den
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Dunn, Bob
Miller, Sir Hal


Durant, Sir Anthony
Mills, Iain


Dykes, Hugh
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Eggar, Tim
Mitchell, Sir David


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Monro, Sir Hector


Fearn, Ronald
Moss, Malcolm


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Nelson, Anthony


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Neubert, Sir Michael


Fishburn, John Dudley
Nicholls, Patrick


Fookes, Dame Janet
Norris, Steve


Forman, Nigel
Paice, James


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Patnick, Irvine


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Pawsey, James


Fox, Sir Marcus
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


French, Douglas
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gale, Roger
Powell, William (Corby)


Gardiner, Sir George
Price, Sir David


Gill, Christopher
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Goodlad, Alastair
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Riddick, Graham


Green way, Harry (Eating N)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Rowe, Andrew


Gregory, Conal
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Grist, Ian
Shaw, David (Dover)


Ground, Patrick
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hague, William
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Shelton, Sir William


Hampson, Dr Keith
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hannam, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Harris, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Haselhurst, Alan
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hawkins, Christopher
Speller, Tony


Hayes, Jerry
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Squire, Robin


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hill, James
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Steen, Anthony


Howarth, G. (Cannock amp; B'wd)
Stern, Michael


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Stevens, Lewis


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Irvine, Michael
Stokes, Sir John


Jack, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Janman, Tim
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (S'end E)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Temple-Morris, Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Knapman, Roger
Thornton, Malcolm


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Thurnham, Peter


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Knowles, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Knox, David
Tredinnick, David


Lawrence, Ivan
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lee, John (Pendle)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Walden, George


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Livsey, Richard
Wallace, James


Lord, Michael
Ward, John


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Maclean, David
Watts, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wells, Bowen


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Wheeler, Sir John


Malins, Humfrey
Whitney, Ray


Mans, Keith
Widdecombe, Ann


Maples, John
Wilkinson, John


Marland, Paul
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Marlow, Tony
Winterton, Nicholas


Maude, Hon Francis
Wolfson, Mark


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wood, Timothy





Woodcock, Dr. Mike
Tellers for the Ayes:


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. David Lightbown and



Mr. John M. Taylor.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Lamond, James


Anderson, Donald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Loyden, Eddie


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McAllion, John


Barron, Kevin
McFall, John


Battle, John
McKelvey, William


Beckett, Margaret
McLeish, Henry


Bell, Stuart
McMaster, Gordon


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Marek, Dr John


Blunkett, David
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Boateng, Paul
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Boyes, Roland
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Bradley, Keith
Martlew, Eric


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Maxton, John


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Meale, Alan


Caborn, Richard
Michael, Alun


Callaghan, Jim
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Canavan, Dennis
Morgan, Rhodri


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Morley, Elliot


Cohen, Harry
Mullin, Chris


Cousins, Jim
Murphy, Paul


Cox, Tom
Nellist, Dave


Cryer, Bob
O'Brien, William


Dalyell, Tam
Patchett, Terry


Darling, Alistair
Pendry, Tom


Dewar, Donald
Pike, Peter L.


Dixon, Don
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dobson, Frank
Prescott, John


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Primarolo, Dawn


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Quin, Ms Joyce


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Randall, Stuart


Eadie, Alexander
Robertson, George


Eastham, Ken
Rogers, Allan


Edwards, Huw
Rowlands, Ted


Fatchett, Derek
Salmond, Alex


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Sheerman, Barry


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Short, Clare


Fisher, Mark
Skinner, Dennis


Flynn, Paul
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Foster, Derek
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Foulkes, George
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Fraser, John
Snape, Peter


Fyfe, Maria
Soley, Clive


Galloway, George
Spearing, Nigel


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Steinberg, Gerry


Golding, Mrs Llin
Strang, Gavin


Gordon, Mildred
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Graham, Thomas
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Vaz, Keith


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Hain, Peter
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Hinchliffe, David
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld amp; Kilsyth)
Wilson, Brian


Home Robertson, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hood, Jimmy
Worthington, Tony


Howells, Geraint
Wray, Jimmy


Hoyle, Doug
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)



Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Illsley, Eric
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Jones, Barry (Alyn amp; Deeside)
Mr. Thomas McAvoy.


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 9th May, be approved.

ESTIMATES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 131 (Liaison Committee),
That this House agrees with the Report [11th June] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

Hostages (Lebanon)

Mr. John P. Smith: It is a great honour and a privilege to present this humble petition on behalf of 42 residents of the village of Dinas Powys, in the Vale of Glamorgan, who are greatly concerned about the plight of John McCarthy and others who have been held hostage in the Lebanon for up to five years.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Foreign Secretary to increase efforts to secure their release.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Mr. John Linsie

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Mr. John Butcher: I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science for his attendance and, through him, I thank those officials who will be helping him at this late hour.
I should like to bring together three strands, the full development of each of which would take much time. The first strand is the way in which Solihull borough council abused its disciplinary powers to obtain the dismissal of one of its educational psychologists, my constituent Mr. Linsie, who had worked for the authority for about 20 years. The second strand deals with my endeavours to obtain an examination of Solihull council's action and the injustice done to my constituent.
The third strand deals with the way in which such an abuse of power is even now seriously eroding the efficient and effective working of the Education Act 1981. The working of that Act turns upon the professional competence and independence of various advisers—educational, medical and psychological. Mr. Linsie's experiences clearly demonstrate that an adviser's independence can be seriously limited by a local authority through the exercise of its hiring and firing powers. Not to beat about the bush, an authority can use its powers as an employer to intimidate its advisers to produce reports which accord with those actions taken as an administrator in the management of its special education system.
Mr. Linsie's difficulties with Solihull point up a much wider issue which, if left unaddressed, has all the potential to become a national scandal. Viewed in this way the issue, as it centres on Mr. Linsie, is the canary in the miner's cage. I shall view the issue in personal terms as it directly affects Mr. Linsie. His difficulties with Solihull metropolitan borough council centre on a memorandum of 6 July 1989 issued to Mr. Linsie by the council's then principal educational psychologist, Mr. Andrew Large, who is no longer an officer of the council—he is now a member of the Minister's inspectorate.
Mr. Large's memo contained three instructions which required Mr. Linsie to change his hours of work, remove from his reports an advisory paragraph to parents, arid rewrite seven of his reports. Those seven reports, and only those seven, contained the paragraph in which Mr. Linsie stated that, in accordance with Solihull's guidelines, his report would not contain a placement recommendation. Mr. Linsie asserts that those instructions were issued with the quite explicit intention of obtaining from him an action indiscipline which, in its turn, would then justify taking disciplinary action against him and so obtaining his summary dismissal.
Solihull's action against my constituent proceeds through four stages: first, the issuing of three instructions; secondly, the refusal by Mr. Linsie to implement those instructions; thirdly, the interpretation by Solihull LEA of his refusal as an act of indiscipline; fourthly, labelling that act of indiscipline as a form of gross misconduct—chilling words—and proceeding against Mr. Linsie via the council's own disciplinary code.
Of that memo's three instructions I propose, because of time limitations, to concentrate upon the third instruction


—Mr. Large's instruction to Mr. Linsie to rewrite seven of the psychological reports that he had prepared for children referred to him under section 5 of the Education Act 1981.
In returning these seven reports, Mr. Large implied that they were incompetently written. What is at issue here is not Mr. Linsie's own competence as a psychologist, which Mr. Linsie would be happy to defend before his peers. That is an issue which Solihull struggled to avoid confronting directly. Instead, what is immediately at issue is Mr. Large's tactics and procedures as a manager of psychologists. For while he claimed to view these seven reports as incompetently written, the only action that he took was to instruct Mr. Linsie to rewrite them. Mr. Large's action here is so much in conflict with the action that any reasonable manager, in such circumstances, might rationally be expected to take that his action requires to be fleshed out with a little detail.
Mr. Linsie, as an employee of 20 years with the authority, had written during that period hundreds of reports—all of which had been accepted as competently written by a psychologist who knew his job. In that period, he once received a formal complaint about his reports—and that from a parent. But even that parent, in due time, accepted the appropriateness of Mr. Linsie's advice. Indeed, that incident, which occurred in 1985, serves to indicate the director of education's attitude towards Mr. Linsie at that time because in April 1985 the then director of education wrote to the complaining parent a letter which concluded:
In the best interest of the pupil I require professional advice from my psychologists—advice which expresses his or her opinions and is given without fear or favour. I have every confidence that Mr. Linsie will provide me with such advice.
As recently as April 1985, therefore, Mr. Linsie received from his director of education that clear endorsement of his professional competence. Yet just four years later he had apparently become so incompetent as a psychologist that it was necessary, in Mr. Large's judgment, to return to him not just one or two of his reports, but no fewer than seven.
It is reasonable to expect, moreover, that Mr. Linsie's immediate manager, in judging his reports, would have met Mr. Linsie to discuss his report writing. But at no time were any meetings held between Mr. Linsie and his superior, or other senior officers, specifically to discuss difficulties concerning his reports. I stress the point—no meetings of a relevant kind were ever held with Mr. Linsie about his report writing.
The manager's action is made the more bizarre by his failure to make explicit the way in which Mr. Linsie's reports were judged to be defective. For example, a memo to Mr. Linsie of 6 July fails to identify, from Mr. Linsie's seven reports, one defect, fault, error, or mistake. Instead, the memo sets for Mr. Linsie's attainment a clutch of goals. Clearly, a manager has a right to set goals, but what is immediately suspect is the ploy of implying that Mr. Linsie's seven reports do not satisfy his manager's goals without making plain their deficiencies by reference to any particulars whatsoever.
It appears, therefore, that Mr. Large holds Mr. Linsie to be seriously professionally incompetent in his report writing. Yet all that he does is to issue Mr. Linsie with an

instruction to rewrite those reports. I suggest in this regard that a number of Solihull's senior officers were engaged in entrapping Mr. Linsie in a catch-22 situation.
Had my constituent implemented his manager's instructions and rewritten his reports, by that very action he would have acknowledged that his original reports were defective and thus incompetently written. Solihull's subsequent behaviour has confirmed Mr. Linsie's own concern regarding the use that Solihull may have made of that admission. Even more clearly, had my constituent refused to rewrite his seven reports, by that action he would have refused an instruction and thus could be disciplined according to Solihull's disciplinary code. In the event, Mr. Linsie chose the second alternative, if I may put it that way—he refused the instruction and was disciplined.
Thus, basic to Solihull's dismissal of my constituent is not Mr. Linsie's action, but his superior's action in issuing the memo of 6 July—an action which I suggest to the House was so managerially unconventional as to justify a questioning of its whole motivation and the conclusion that beneath its apparent managerial purpose there may have resided an intention to secure Mr. Linsie's dismissal. My constituent's superior's action here is so bizarre in relation to general mangement practice that it ought to have been obvious to Solihull's local education authority that the instructions of 6 July were issued for purposes other than might have been apparent on the surface. But such was not obvious. Instead, Mr. Large's actions, managerially bizarre though they were, received full endorsement from other Solihull senior officers.
There is not time to detail all the various levels of the authority and the individuals concerned who did not grip the situation and address the real issues beneath the verbiage with which they were confronted. Suffice it to say that those officers and officers sitting in appeal on the case and a committee of councillors in my view did not come up to scratch.
If my hon. Friend judges that such a catalogue of suspicions, doubts and bizarre management practices lacks immediate credibility because of its wide-ranging implications for the behaviour of an LEA collectively and at all levels, I remind my hon. Friend that Solihull's defence of its actions against my constituent completely collapsed when required to stand before an independent industrial tribunal. It collapsed because of the tribunal chairman's intervention. If the tribunal chairman, before he had listened to argument and heard evidence in any detail, could see that Solihull's case was fundamentally flawed, one wonders why Solihull's own legal department was willing to mount the action at all at further expense to the taxpayer with a bundle of documents two inches thick and the time of four or five senior officers.
Thus the situation following the industrial tribunal hearing can be viewed as analogous to that of a criminal prosecution which has dramatically broken down, in which the accused then pursues redress against the police for malicious prosecution—except that in Mr. Linsie's case there is apparently no analogous action that he could take against Solihull metropolitan borough council for the abuse of process of its disciplinary code. It seems that a local authority can wholly misuse its disciplinary code and is answerable to no one save an industrial tribunal. In this regard, it is relevant to note that a tribunal's remit does not include taking action against an employer. Nor does a tribunal possess the power absolutely to protect an


employee's job. Thus Solihull could embark on its action against Mr. Linsie in the full knowledge that it could leave my constituent without a job at the age of 60.
I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister, with respect, that the fact that Mr. Linsie withdrew his industrial tribunal action is irrelevant to the matter that I raise. At that point, with my support, my constituent requested the Department of Education and Science to mount an inquiry, but to no effect. I also requested my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to intervene, also to no avail. Education organisations requested Solihull itself to mount an internal inquiry, as did my constituent, but again to no avail.
All that would be serious enough if it only concerned Mr. Linsie personally, but it does not. It refers potentially to the whole profession of education psychologists and to all those employees of a local authority who provide advice under the 1981 Act. For what Solihull's action against Mr. Linsie reveals is an LEA's endeavour to limit the professional independence and competence of an adviser in the preparation of reports under the 1981 Act.
Of this general state of affairs, Mr. Peter Newell of the children's legal centre recently wrote in a article, under the heading "Don't Gag the Professionals", that
conflicts are intensifying between the duty of teachers, educational psychologists, doctors and other professional workers to set out the special provision they consider a child needs under the 1981 Act and their contractual duty to obey their local education authority which may be neither willing nor able to make the provision they recommend.
If local education authorities are able to pressure their education psychologists without let or hindrance, that will wholly vitiate the statementing procedure that was set up by the House in the Education Act 1981. That procedure is complex, time consuming and expensive. Its whole value turns upon the professional competence and independence of the advisers who are producing its basic reports, educational, medical and psychological. It assumes that parents, in making their own submissions, will have ready access to all the relevant information.
It is now emerging that LEAs are seeking to make a farce of the procedure by turning it into a paper exercise that does no more than legitimise what an authority might do on purely administrative grounds. The House clearly did not intend to create a set of circumstances in which LEAs are able effectively to say to parents, "This is what your child needs because that is all that we are willing to provide." If the statementing procedure is to have any relevance to a child's unique learning difficulties, it is crucial to defend the professional independence and competence of those producing the statementing reports. It is in that process that the education psychologist makes a crucial contribution to the determination of the learning difficulties that are experienced by all children. Indeed, his relation to the education statementing system is closely analogous to the forensic scientist's relation to the judicial system. I need hardly remind the House how the questionable independence and competence of a handful of forensic scientists has created massive and grievous difficulties for the judicial system's working in general.
It is the self-same issues of professional independence and competence which, in relation to the education system, are instanced to a heightened degree by Solihull MBC's action against Mr. Linsie. If the House ignores the matter, it will send the clearest message to all advisers that it is not concerned with professional independence and competence. Is that the message that it wishes to send? I

ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider his earlier decision and to institute a local inquiry into Solihull's action against my constituent, John Linsie.
It would seem that my hon. Friend possesses some powers to act. In a letter to me, he noted that Solihull
subsequently withdrew the charge of gross misconduct against Mr. Linsie".
That seems to suggest that that absolved the DES from taking action. However, by the time that Solihull withdrew its charge, the deed had been done. My constituent had lost his job and had no prospect of reinstatement.
In addition, an official of the DES wrote to Mr. Linsie turning down his request but noting that for action to be taken
an authority's conduct must be conduct which no sensible authority acting with due appreciation of its statutory responsibility would have decided to adopt.
That is a DES letter of 31 October 1990.
Authorities have a clear duty to the House to act as its agents in the day-to-day administration of the 1981 legislation; and an authority cannot be held to be acting with due appreciation of its statutory responsibilities in this regard if it uses its hiring-and-firing powers to intimidate those who prepare the reports basic to the working of the Act's statementing procedure.
I refer to the issue of Mr. Linsie's own competence as an educational psychologist. In that he refused to re-write his reports, Solihull rejected them from its statementing procedure for the seven children involved. Thus it was necessary to produce a further seven reports by other psychologists. As a consequence there now exists, for the same seven children, two sets of reports—one set prepared by Mr. Linsie and rejected by Solihull, and the other prepared by other psychologists and accepted by Solihull. Thus, a comparison of the two sets of reports provides a ready measure of Solihull's own quality control procedure. Six of the seven parents involved granted Mr. Linsie access to the reports prepared for their children by psychologists other than Mr. Linsie. For those six children, Mr. Linsie submitted both sets of reports to another educational psychologist of considerable experience and qualifications, but personally unknown to my constituent—Dr. David Galloway of Lancaster university.
I quote from Dr. Galloway's reference to four of the reports that the authority found acceptable—those prepared by psychologists other than Mr. Linsie. He stated that they
contain no information that could not equally well have been provided by a reasonably well-informed and experienced teacher.
To that assessment, Dr. Galloway added a comment about the reports' relevance to the working of the Education Act 1981. He said:
It is reasonable to assume that Parliament intended rather more from the educational psychologist's contribution to this process than repetition of second-hand information and production of information that could quite well have been produced by a teacher.
Thus, the issue to which Dr. Galloway draws attention with regard to four of the reports which Solihull found acceptable is not their quality, but the more fundamental issue of whether they are psychological reports at all. Dr. Galloway absolves all Mr. Linsie's reports from that fundamental criticism. That raises the uncomfortable suspicion that what worried Solihull was not Mr. Linsie's competence as psychologist, but the fact that he was endeavouring to work as a psychologist at all.
I must refer to comments about the charge of "gross misconduct". In preferring such a charge, the authority paid no heed to the way in which that charge would be interpreted by people in general. On the inappropriateness of the charge, Mr. John Wright, administrator for the Independent Panel for Special Education Advice, stated:
To charge Mr. Linsie with gross misconduct was scandalously inappropriate. It is difficult to interpret the selection of this charge, as opposed to indiscipline or inefficiency which are the two alternatives available in the discipinary code, other than as an attempt to intimidate other Solihull staff who may in future feel impelled to speak for the rights of children with special educational needs.
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), for listening to a case that must, by necessity, be explained in some detail. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that it raises serious questions about the rights of employees to have their arguments heard properly and at appropriate levels within an education authority and within a city and borough council's remit. I believe that in this case something has gone horribly wrong. I know my hon. Friend to be a reasonable man and I shall leave it to his discretion whether to call in the papers for another look, whether to institute his own inquiries in his own way or whether to bring in an outside observer to consider the implications of the case for the Education Act 1981, for the damage done to my constituent and for the way in which an authority can prefer a charge of gross misconduct, which was in itself a gross misuse of its powers to hire and fire, and not subsequently re-examine the case with the reason and openness that it should have elicited in the first instance.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) on securing this Adjournment debate. This is the first debate in which my hon. Friend has participated since his return to the House following his recent illness. We are all glad that he is again playing his part in our debates. He always raises important issues in a searching fashion, and he always champions his constituents doughtily, as he has done this evening. He has spoken on behalf of Mr. Linsie energetically and with feeling, and he raised important and difficult issues which are associated with the case.
My hon. Friend has chosen to speak at length. Within the constraints of this Adjournment debate, it is not possible for me to respond in detail to a range of matters which he has articulated.
It would be appropriate for me to begin by explaining the nature of the Department's involvement in this matter to date and how the Secretary of State arrived at his decisions in relation to the complaints that were put to him by Mr. Linsie under the Education Act 1944.
On 15 July 1990, the then Secretary of State received from Mr. Linsie a letter registering a formal complaint under sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944 against the metropolitan borough of Solihull. The substance of Mr. Linsie's complaint under section 68 of the Act was

that the borough had acted unreasonably in dismissing him in December 1989 on grounds which were cited, as my hon. Friend has said, as "gross misconduct."
The Secretary of State's power to intervene under section 68 is restricted to those cases in which the local education authority has acted "unreasonably" with respect to the exercise of any power conferred or the performance of any duty imposed by or under the Education Acts. From the information submitted by Mr. Linsie, there was no basis on which the Secretary of State could have intervened under section 68 of the 1944 Act as his complaint—that the LEA acted unreasonably against him for failing to comply with its instructions as employer—did not relate to the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty by the LEA under the Acts. Mr. Linsie was, therefore, notified of this position in relation to the section 68 complaint in a letter dated 15 August 1990.
The substance of Mr. Linsie's complaint under section 99 of the Act was that Solihull metropolitan borough council had failed to discharge its legal duties under section 5(3)(b) of the Education Act 1981. Mr. Linsie said that the borough had failed fully to inform parents about an aspect of its procedures used in making an assessment of its children under section 5 of that Act. In specific terms, Mr. Linsie's concern was that the borough had failed to advise parents of the existence of a set of guidelines issued to members of Solihull's school psychological service in 1984 and titled "Guidelines for Writing Psychological Reports."
My Department responded to the section 99 complaint in a letter dated 31 October 1990. This pointed out that the ultimate responsibility for formulating an assessment of a child's special educational needs rested with the local education authority, which had the task of co-ordinating the advice, evidence, representations and information received about the child. It was further observed that the local education authority had a legitimate right to require its officers and advisers to provide such information and advice as the LEA needed to perform its duties under the Education Acts and to provide guidelines to ensure that the necessary information was provided and that there was consistency between the advice and evidence proffered. The Secretary of State took the view that there was nothing in the 1981 Act or subsequent regulations which could have been construed as giving parents a statutory right to be informed about the existence and use of guidelines that were intended purely as an internal working instruction for educational psychologists or other professionals employed by the local education authority. It was, moreover, difficult to see how such a requirement would be practicable.
If the guidelines themselves had been inconsistent with the primary or the secondary legislation, as interpreted by the Secretary of State at the time of his decision, and if the content of the guidelines had formed part of the basis of Mr. Linsie's complaint, there would have been grounds for the Secretary of State to have intervened. However, as Mr. Linsie had made clear, the content of the guidelines was not the basis of his complaint under section 99 of the Education Act 1944. In the circumstances, there appeared to be no grounds which have would have justified the intervention of the Secretary of State in relation to Mr. Linsie's complaint under section 99 of the Act.
It is my firm belief that local authority educational psychologists and their professional colleagues in other disciplines play a vital part in our realisation of the aims


embodied by the Education Act 1981. Through the detailed reports which they provide, they help to ensure that the most appropriate provision possible is given to children who have special educational needs. They also help to ensure that, wherever possible, such provision is made in an integrated setting where children with special needs can learn alongside their peers. I must stress that my right hon. Friend's decisions referred to are not in any way a judgment about the contribution which Mr. Linsie has made to this process or about whether the termination of

his employment with the borough of Solihull was justified. Those matters are for others to determine, not the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Secretary of State's decisions on the complaints before him were quite simply based upon legal considerations in respect of the particular terms of Mr. Linsie's complaints.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Twelve o'clock.